i 



1 



JB^Wi 1 " 





»'.«'•■ 


*» 




1 .V ■ 




■ r 




■ 




A * » 








I 






hi 



■ 



SB ■ H 

V*- VP 

I 



LIBRARY 0! EGRESS. 




- - - *« - 



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 



VnHF 

■ 

■ 



■ ■ 



V 



J v - 



IB ■ v* ; 

■ • 










■ 






*%.» 

•* 



W 



■69 
■ 



m 



m 






■ 



irk-' ■ 

■ 



A 



m 



^^M 






J 



m 



^H 







THE 



Baptist Principle 



IN ITS APPLICATION TO 



BAPTISM AND THE LORD'S SUPPER. 



BY 

WILLIAM CLEAVER WILKINSON, D. D. 



/ 1 



f/ V ; 






V ■ ' " - 



PHILADELPHIA : 
AMERICAN BAPTIST PUBLICATION SOCIETY, 

1420 CHESTNUT STREET. 



'* 



*$ 



Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1881, by the 

AMERICAN BAPTIST PUBLICATION SOCIETY, 
In the Office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington. 



Westcott & Thomson, 
Stereotypers and Electrotypers, Pkilada. 



CONTENTS. 



CHAPTER I. 

PAGE 

The Principle Defined 7 



CHAPTER II. 
Obedience and the Spirit of Obedience 14 

CHAPTER III. 

Which? The Fact or the Act? Ritualism or 
Obedience ? 21 

CHAPTER IV. 

The Two Ordinances appointing Baptism. The 
Ordinance " Baptize " 32 

CHAPTER V. 

The Two Ordinances appointing Baptism (continued). 
The Ordinance "Be Baptized " -. 40 

CHAPTER VI. 

The Context as you Understand it 47 

3 



4 CONTENTS. 

CHAPTER VII. 

PAGE 

The Context as we Understand it 56 

CHAPTER VIII. 

The Great Commission: What it Teaches con- 
cerning Baptism. I. The Meaning of the Ex- 
pression, " Teach all Nations " 63 

CHAPTER IX. 

The Great Commission : What it Teaches con- 
cerning Baptism. II. The Relation between 

"DlSCIPLING" AND "BAPTIZING" 7 1 

CHAPTER X. 
Obedience and Common Sense 78 

CHAPTER XI. 
The Argument from Common Sense 84 

CHAPTER XII. 
A Modern Pseudo-Apostolic Epistle 92 

CHAPTER XIII. 
Baptism in Symbols 99 

CHAPTER XIV. 
Symbols in Baptism 114 



CONTENTS. 5 

CHAPTER XV. 

PAGE 

Biblical "Belittling" of Baptism . . 135 

CHAPTER XVI. 
A Talk with Christians not Baptists 145 

CHAPTER XVII. 
Some Classical Proof-Texts for Infant Baptism. ... 153 

CHAPTER XVIII. 

Archbishop Whately's Obiter Dictum on Infant 
Baptism 164 

CHAPTER XIX. 
How Infant Baptism Prepared for the Papacy.... 179 

CHAPTER XX. 

How Baptist Practice would have Prevented the 
Papacy 1 86 

CHAPTER XXI. 
Scriptural Infant Baptism 194 

CHAPTER XXII. 
What " Close Communion " really is 199 

CHAPTER XXIII. 

Constructive Baptism and Constructive Communion . 206 
1 * 



6 CONTENTS. 

CHAPTER XXIV. 

PAGE 

The Sentimental View of the Lord's Supper. ... 212 

CHAPTER XXV. 
"Close Communion" as a Method of Propagandism . 218 

CHAPTER XXVI. 
Baptist Vernacular 223 

CHAPTER XXVII. 
The Current Baptist Crisis 231 

CHAPTER XXVIII. 

The Future of "Open Communion" among Ameri- 
can Baptists 239 

CHAPTER XXIX. 

The Baptist Denomination Hygienically con- 
sidered 247 



The Baptist Principle. 



CHAPTER I. 

THE PRINCIPLE DEFINED. 



THE true organizing principle of Baptist churches 
may be stated in three words : it is Obedience 
to Christ. An essential part of obedience to Christ 
consists in persuading to obey him. Christ said, " Be 
baptized." This, therefore, is one of his command- 
ments. To " be baptized " is, so far, obedience. But 
Christ said also, " Teaching them to observe all things 
whatsoever I have commanded you." This is another 
of his commandments. To " teach " to obey is obedi- 
ence. Obedience in this full sense — that is, to obey 
and to teach to obey — is the mission of Baptists. 

We insist upon baptism, not because it is a rite, but 
because it is an ordinance. It is not the baptism so 
much as it is the obedience that concerns us. To have 
been baptized is, comparatively, nothing ; to have obeyed 
is, comparatively, all. Not to " be baptized," but to obey 
in being baptized, is what the Baptist principle requires. 
The Baptist principle of full obedience to Christ re- 
quires this, first, of us ourselves, and then requires us 
to require it, secondly, of others. The obligation to 

7 



8 THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 

obey in being baptized ourselves is imperative, but no 
less imperative is the obligation to obey in teaching 
others also to obey in being baptized. The duty of 
teaching obedience is equal with the duty of obeying 
— is, indeed, identical with it. Our principle of obedi- 
ence to Christ makes us, first, Baptists ourselves, and 
then immediately sets us to making Baptists of others. 
If we cease to seek proselytes, it is because we, so far, 
cease to be Baptists. We become Baptists and we be- 
come propagandists of Baptist views by one and the 
same almighty creative act of God. The principle 
of obedience to Christ makes us, simultaneously and 
inseparably, both the one and the other. 

Baptists, therefore, misunderstand their own position, 
and suffer their position to be misunderstood by others, 
when they consider themselves or suffer themselves to 
be considered merely or mainly the champions of im- 
mersion for baptism. Immersion for baptism Baptists 
unwaveringly believe in ; but immersion for baptism is 
not the Baptists' reason for existing as a distinct denom- 
ination of Christians. It is not for baptism according 
to a particular definition that they stand, so much as it 
is for obedience in baptism according to some definition. 
But it is not for obedience in baptism according to any 
definition, even according to the true definition, that 
Baptists stand. What Baptists stand for is obedience 
to Christ in everything — in baptism, certainly ; but in 
all other points not less. Their organizing principle is 
the principle of universal obedience. This principle 
includes baptism ; but it does not exhaust itself in 
baptism. If, just now, baptism seems to be dispro- 



THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 9 

portionately prominent in Baptist inculcation, it is be- 
cause of a reason that is destined, as we trust, to be 
temporary. There is no reason for our being known 
by the name " Baptists" except that so many Christians 
still fail of obedience to Christ in baptism. I do not 
care to say fail of being baptized, or, more exactly, of 
having been baptized ; but fail of obedience in baptism. 
Our name " Baptists " is a provisional one. We accept 
it for the time from our brethren. When our brethren 
accept from us — or, better, from our Lord (both theirs 
and ours) — the principle of obedience to Christ, they 
and we together may be contented with the simple 
common name of " Christians." 

" But how," it may be asked, " does this Baptist 
principle of obedience to Christ apply to the Baptist 
practice of restricted communion ? There is no com- 
mandment — is there ? — of Christ that forbids Baptists 
to sit down at the Lord's Supper with Paedobaptists." 
Certainly, I answer, there is no such explicit com- 
mandment. This is true, on the one hand ; but it is 
equally true, on the other, that there is no command- 
ment that enjoins the intercommunion in question. 
On both sides alike explicit commandment is want- 
ing. We are left to infer the will of Christ. To infer 
the will of Christ, I say ; for we are not left to consult 
our own will. The principle of obedience forbids that. 
Now, what is the obviously-implied will of Christ ? 

" Repent and be baptized," says Christ. (I make no 
discrimination in authority between what Christ says 
with his own mouth and what he says by the mouth 
of an apostle.) Every one that " repents " — that is, 



IO THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 

every one that obeys Christ's first commandment; 
in a single word, every " convert " — is directed next 
and in immediate sequel to be "baptized." Then fol- 
low many other commandments of obligation to be 
habitually obeyed; among them — or, rather, besides 
them — one of a ritual nature, to be often (occa- 
sionally, perhaps periodically) but not habitually obey- 
ed. This last commandment, being not moral but 
ceremonial in its quality, and of occasional rather than 
habitual obligation, is, in reason as in fact, placed sub- 
sequent to the command, " Repent." This every one 
admits. But not less, both in fact and in reason, it is 
also placed subsequent to the command, " Be baptized." 
If repenting must precede the Lord's Supper, being 
baptized likewise must, as well. The command, " Be 
baptized," precedes the command to partake of the 
Supper as they occur in Scripture, exactly as does the 
command, " Repent." So much for the order of Scrip- 
ture. As for the order of reason, the rite which sym- 
bolizes creation, beginning, birth — namely, the rite of 
baptism — of course precedes the rite which symbolizes 
sustenance, continuance, nurture. Plainly, therefore, 
the implied will of Christ is, First baptism, afterward 
the Supper. 

Now, to the spirit of obedience the clearly implied 
will of Christ is just as binding as his expressed will 
is. True, there is no distinct commandment, Be bap- 
tized before you come to the Supper ; but so there is 
no distinct commandment, Repent before you come to 
the Supper. Christ's will, however, is clear as to both 
points, and no less clear as to the one point than as to 



THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 1 1 

the other. The principle of obedience requires us to 
act accordingly. 

But, still further, the principle of obedience requires 
us to exert our influence to induce others to act accord- 
ingly. Now suppose a case. I meet a Christian man 
that has never obeyed the ordinance, " Be baptized." 
He may have been sprinkled, he may even have been 
immersed, in his infancy ; but he has never, in any plain, 
simple, straightforward sense of the word, obeyed the 
ordinance, " Be baptized ;" that is to say, being ad- 
dressed by Christ in the imperative " Be baptized," he 
has never once met that imperative with the obedient 
" I will," but has always replied, " I have been." He has, 
therefore, never obeyed Christ, in that particular com- 
mand. I, a Baptist, meet such a man. I say to him, 
" Come, sit with me at the Lord's Table " — that is, I 
invite him to do what I believe to be inconsistent with 
the will of Christ. How does that " teach " him to 
fulfil Christ's will ? How does that comport with my 
principle of obedience ? But he says to me, " My con- 
science is satisfied." I am obliged to reply, "The com- 
mand is not, ' Satisfy your conscience,' but, * Be bap- 
tized.' I shall not interfere with your satisfying your 
conscience — indeed, I shall try to enlighten your con- 
science, that you may have an enlightened conscience 
to satisfy ; but, meantime, surely I cannot invite you to 
do what I believe to be inconsistent with Christ's will 
— what I should not be conscience-clear in doing 
myself." 

On the other hand, the same man invites me to sit 
with him at the Lord's Table. My sitting at the 



12 THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 

Lord's Table on some suitable occasion is an act of 
obedience, because I am so commanded. My sitting 
with him, on his invitation, at the Lord's Table 
is not an act of obedience, because I am not so com- 
manded. But if my sitting thus with him should 
signify approval of his disregard of Christ's will, in 
not having previously obeyed in being baptized, why, 
I should be guilty of disobedience myself. And if 
my act did not signify approval of his course, what 
good result of fellowship or of brotherly love — what 
good result of any sort — would be gained ? 

The fact is that, as Baptists could not conscien- 
tiously partake themselves of the Supper without 
previously obeying the command, " Be baptized," so 
they cannot, expressly or impliedly, countenance the 
partaking of it by others without the same previous 
obedience. They cannot invite another to disregard 
what they believe to be the will of Christ, any more 
than they can disregard that will themselves. They 
cannot accept an invitation to join another in an act 
which, on that other's part, involves disregard of 
Christ's will, any more than they could by word of 
mouth approve the disregard involved. The act itself 
would virtually approve the disregard unless accom- 
panied by an explanation and a protest. The protest 
and the explanation, if given, would be drowned and 
lost in the louder eloquence of the approving act. 
The only consistent thing for Baptists is evidently to 
abstain from any implication of themselves in an act 
which involves disregard of Christ's will. The prac- 
tice of "restricted communion" is simply such a 



THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 1 3 

course of abstinence. " Free communion " could be 
significant of nothing but withdrawal of protest and 
silent approbation. " Restricted communion " has in 
it nothing offensive but the disapproval and protest 
that it contains. We dare not retract this solemn 
negative act and signal of fidelity to our Lord and to 
our brethren. We are sorry to give offence — we like 
to be liked; but noblesse oblige. Relationship to 
Christ imposes obligations ; the principle of obedi- 
ence to Christ makes us as much afraid to counte- 
nance disregard of Christ's will on the part of others 
as to be guilty ourselves of the disregard. We wish 
to see our brethren obey Christ, precisely as we wish 
to obey Christ ourselves. 

The principle of obedience to Christ is the Baptist 
principle. That principle is at the bottom both of 
Baptist baptism and of Baptist restriction of the 
Lord's Supper to the baptized believer; and of the 
one as much as of the other. 

2 



CHAPTER II. 

OBEDIENCE AND THE SPIRIT OF OBEDIENCE. 

OBEDIENCE and the spirit of obedience — I speak 
in the sphere of relationship to Christ — are some- 
times improperly confounded. They are indeed occa- 
sionally the same, but not, by any means, always. 
They demand from us, therefore, now and then the 
exercise of a thoughtful discrimination. The dis- 
tinction between them, when a distinction exists, is 
not seldom of considerable practical importance. 

For purposes of useful discrimination, in life as well 
as in thought, we may properly distinguish two sorts 
of obedience to Christ. There is, first, the obedience 
which consists in accepting Christ as Master. This 
initial and comprehensive act of obedience is what is 
generally termed conversion. It is the obedience 
which that saying requires, " Believe in the Lord 
Jesus Christ" — that is, submit to acknowledge that 
Jesus is your Lord. As respects this inclusive sense 
of obedience to Christ, the spirit of obedience and 
obedience are manifestly the same. Having the spirit 
to submit is submitting. Within the scope of this 
meaning of obedience there are, in fact, no two things 
to be talked about, either for discrimination or for 
identification ; there is but the one thing, indifferently 

14 



THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 1 5 

named now obedience and now spirit of obedience. 
Here, then, no danger exists of injurious mistake in 
confounding things that differ : for there are no dif- 
fering things to confound. 

But there is a second sense of the expression, 
Obedience to Christ. In this second sense obedi- 
ence consists in actually doing particular things, out- 
ward or inward, that Christ has commanded. Christ's 
commandments, however, never are outward merely : 
they are sometimes inward merely. But if they are 
outward in part, they are always, at the same time, in 
part inward. 

Two cases, therefore, arise. One case is that of 
commands that are wholly inward in their nature ; 
the other is that of commands that are partly inward 
and partly outward. These two cases admit of being 
clearly distinguished. In the case of commands wholly 
inward, obedience and the spirit of obedience are iden- 
tical. Take, for instance, the command, " Rejoice." 
Here, evidently, having the joyful spirit is precisely 
the thing commanded. To rejoice and to have the 
spirit of rejoicing are one and the same thing. A 
second time, accordingly, we find obedience and the 
spirit of obedience to be mutually convertible terms. 
In the case, however, of particular commands that 
are partly inward and partly outward, we are com- 
pelled to establish a distinction. Here two quite 
separable elements enter into the command, and two 
severally corresponding elements, also quite separable 
in thought, enter into the obedience. There is a spirit 
of the command — that is one element; and there is a 



1 6 THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 

letter of the command — that is another element. So 
there is, too, a spirit of obedience — that is one ele- 
ment; and there is the actual obeying — that is an- 
other element. For full obedience these two elements 
of course must co-exist. If I have only the spirit to 
obey, I meet only the spirit of the command. It is 
needful, besides, to actually obey, in order to dis- 
charge a complete obedience. Take an illustration. 

Christ says, through an apostle, " Confess your 
faults one to another." In these words a specific out- 
ward act is commanded, involving implicitly a specific 
inward spirit. Two elements enter into the command, 
and two elements must enter into the obedience. I 
have committed, let us say, a fault against a brother. 
I conceive and cherish the spirit of obedience as to 
the commanded act of confession. Now, if this obe- 
dient spirit in me is genuine and complete, I have 
already satisfied the spirit of the command before I 
actually confess ; but have I obeyed the command ? 
No, for the command is outward, as well as inward ; 
and I must comply outwardly, as well as inwardly, 
in order to perfect obedience. Not till I actually 
confess shall I have obeyed. Obeying must be added 
to the spirit of obeying to make up obedience. 

Does it follow, then, that in such a case I may per- 
haps have the spirit of obedience — the undoubtedly 
genuine spirit of obedience — and, after all, not act- 
ually obey ? Under some circumstances I answer, 
Yes. An impossibility may have intervened. The 
brother transgressed against is inaccessible to me for 
some reason — perhaps through death. The spirit of 



THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. I? 

the command is now all that obliges me; and my 
obligation is fulfilled if I exercise the spirit of obedi- 
ence. If I am physically unable to obey literally, I 
am free from moral blame for not literally obeying. 
I do not now disobey, though I fail to obey. But 
that is not because I exercise the spirit of obedience, 
and the spirit of obedience is the same as actual obe- 
dience, or as good ; it is rather because actual obedience 
is not required of me. Under such circumstances I am 
not addressed in the outward part of the command. 
The letter of the command does not speak to me. I 
am free from disobedience to the letter, not because I 
have obeyed in the spirit, but because in the letter I 
was not commanded. Self-evidently, the spirit of 
obedience does not become obedience by virtue of 
the fact that obedience is impossible. In short, where 
a particular act is commanded, the spirit of obedience 
is never commensurate and identical with obedience. 
In such a case obedience must always be completed 
by obeying. If obedience is physically impossible, 
obedience is not morally required. What is then 
required is repentance for not having obeyed while 
obedience was still possible, if it ever was possible ; 
but of course I cannot claim that I do render obedi- 
ence in the mere fact of my repenting that I have not 
obeyed. 

Suppose again. I have misunderstood, we will say, 
or I have entirely overlooked, the command in ques- 
tion. In this new case I do not obey, and, what is 
more, I cannot even say that I have cherished the 
spirit of obedience as regards that particular com- 
2* B 



1 8 THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 

mand. I have neither obeyed nor had the purpose 
to obey. Where, now, is my obedience ? Evidently, 
it must be looked for, if anywhere, in my first general 
act of submitting to Christ as Master. Will this suffice ? 
Will obedience in the gross dispense me from the obli- 
gation to obedience in detail ? If so, why should Christ 
ever have issued any specific precepts ? The principle 
that the spirit of obedience in general is sufficient to 
answer in place of obedience to particular precepts 
would be Antinomianism pure and simple. No ; 
obedience to a specific injunction cannot be rendered 
without actually obeying that specific injunction. And 
if any specific injunction has been either misunderstood 
or altogether overlooked, then it cannot be claimed that, 
with reference to that specific injunction, as intended by 
its author, even the spirit of obedience has been exer- 
cised. As before, in the instance of its having become 
impossible to obey, so now, in the instance of a com- 
mand being overlooked or misunderstood, I may be 
forgiven for non-obedience. But, mark, non-obedience 
is not converted into obedience by the presence of any 
such mistake, however excusable. Nothing but obey- 
ing completes obedience here. And nothing but the 
spirit that meets a command with a frank and conscious 
" I will " is even the spirit of obedience with respect to 
that particular commandment. 

Now for an important application. Christ says, " Be 
baptized." Here a particular act is enjoined, whether 
he meant sprinkling or pouring or dipping. Let us 
suppose it uncertain, but it is some act. Now, with 
reference to this commandment — no matter, for the 



THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 1 9 

moment, whether of dipping or pouring or sprink- 
ling — full obedience is not conceivable except as ren- 
dered in an act performed by the person addressed. 
The person to be baptized is spoken to (no one else) 
and commanded to perform an act. The act is, being 
baptized. This act, therefore, must be performed by 
him, or no obedience is rendered. 

But further. Not only has the person commanded 
not obeyed unless he has performed the commanded 
act, but he has not even exercised the spirit of obe- 
dience as respects this particular commandment — 
whether of sprinkling or pouring or dipping — un- 
less he has some time, at least, in his life, met the 
ordinance, " Be baptized," with the conscious answer, 
"I wilt" 

Now let the great mass of my Paedobaptist brethren 
consider candidly for one moment with themselves 
what position they occupy to-day with respect to the 
commandment, " Be baptized." Whether the com- 
mandment means "be sprinkled," or whatever it 
means, they not only have not obeyed it, but they 
have never exercised toward it even the spirit of obe- 
dience. They were baptized (let us suffer the word) 
when they were infants. Grant it. But certainly they 
themselves fulfilled no obedience. Nay, they them- 
selves performed no act commanded. The act com- 
manded, on their part, was to submit themselves to bap- 
tism, but they did not submit themselves to baptism, 
much less did they exercise the proper accompanying 
spirit of obedience. Both the act expressly com- 
manded and the accompanying spirit, commanded by 



20 THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 

implication, are wanting to their discharge of obedience 
to the commandment. The commandment, always oblig- 
atory until obeyed, confronts them in the New Testa- 
ment, " Be baptized." Obedience is not impossible to 
them. The commandment is not overlooked by them 
— it is not, as we at present will suppose, misunder- 
stood — but it is not obeyed. It is not even met with 
the spirit of obedience. It never has been. Our 
Paedobaptist brethren will not claim that they ever 
once met Christ's words, " Be baptized," with the in- 
ward answer, " I will." They have always said, " I 
have been," as if what Christ wanted of them was 
the state, on their part, of having been baptized, in- 
stead of the very thing commanded ; namely, the act 
— performed by them in conscious obedience — of being 
baptized, or, in still other words, the act of intelligently 
and obediently submitting themselves to baptism ! A 
ceremony never commanded by Christ is allowed, with 
them, to supplant an ordinance expressly established 
by Christ. If infant baptism were only a ceremony 
added and superfluous ! but it is made a substitute 
for a rite ordained by Christ. 

I would earnestly ask my Paedobaptist brethren to 
ponder with themselves what that meaneth : " Thus have 
ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your 

TRADITION." 



CHAPTER III. 

WHICH ? THE FACT OR THE ACT ?— THAT IS, RITUALISM 
OR OBEDIENCE? 

IT is no doubt often matter of perfectly sincere — and, 
it must be owned, not unnatural — surprise to Paedo- 
baptists that their Baptist brethren should insist so 
strongly as they do upon their own distinctive view 
of the true relation between baptism and repentance. 
"You Baptists" — this, probably, would reflect the 
general Paedobaptist state of mind upon the point — 
" you Baptists say obedience is the great thing. We 
heartily agree with you. Obedience to Christ you 
claim to be the Baptist principle. We claim obedi- 
ence to Christ for our own principle, at the same time 
that we do not deny it to be yours. We desire, we 
Paedobaptists, to obey Christ as much as do you. 
Christ says, 'Be baptized;' and we are baptized. Christ 
says, ' Repent ;' and we have repented. Do we not 
meet Christ's will ? Are we not obedient ?" 

But I need not have constructed a conjectural state- 
ment. A Paedobaptist writer of no mean influence, 
undertaking to speak on behalf of his Paedobaptist breth- 
ren, expressed himself publicly, not long since, upon 
this very point, in the following words : 

" Those baptized in infancy suppose they have obey- 

21 



22 THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 

ed the command to 'be baptized.' They know they 
have exercised the spirit of obedience to it. When the 
command says, ' Do/ they reply, in filial obedience, ' I 
do.' When the command says, ' Be,' they reply, in an 
equally obedient spirit, ' Yea, Lord, I am.' " 

This brings the issue between Baptists and Psedo- 
baptists to a point. 

Two important mistakes are, as I think, involved in 
the sentences quoted — one, a mistake respecting the 
true nature of obedience in general ; the other, a mis- 
take respecting the true nature of a certain particular 
command to be obeyed. Let us consider these mis- 
takes in order. 

First, then, I venture to maintain that in the forego- 
ing quotation the spirit of obedience is not truly inter- 
preted. The spirit of obedience does not reply, " I 
do," or, " I am." It replies, " I will." " I will " is the 
invariable reply of the spirit of obedience. The spirit 
of obedience does not know how to reply to a com- 
mand in any other tense than the future. When the 
command comes with the word " Be," the full reply of 
the spirit of obedience is, " I will be." When the com- 
mand comes with the word " Do," the full reply of the 
spirit of obedience is, " I will do." 

To reply to the command " Be," " I am," or to the 
command " Do," " I do," is to affirm one or the other 
of the two following things, neither of which belongs 
to the language of the spirit of obedience — namely, 
either " This command was not necessary, for I had 
anticipated it," or else " This command is not obliga- 
tory, for I have obeyed it." But, as already said, neither 



THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 2$ 

the one nor the other of these two affirmations is the 
language of the spirit of obedience. To say, " This 
command was not necessary, for I had anticipated it," 
is, supposing the command addressed to you, irrever- 
ent. It is the language of pride, of self-righteousness. 
To say, " This command is not obligatory, for I have 
obeyed it," is right or it is wrong according as to say 
so is true or false — according, observe, as to say so is 
true or false, but by no means, necessarily, according 
as you think it to be true or false. If to say so is false, 
it is wrong, whether you think it true or not, though, 
of course, less wrong if you think it true. On the 
other hand, if it is true that you have, indeed, once 
obeyed — once, and for all, the command being of a 
nature to require but a single obedience — why, then 
your language is simply the language of sane recollec- 
tion and of proper self-justification. But, though entire- 
ly right language for the case supposed, it yet is not at 
all the language of the spirit of obedience. The spir' 
of obedience, I repeat, has but one language. That 
language can be nothing different : it is for ever, " I 
will." And unless this language — the consenting " I 
will " — has, at some moment, been spoken in response 
to the command, whether to " Be " or to " Do," the 
command has not yet been obeyed. 

It is not arrogance for me, a Baptist, to say this. It 
is certainly far from " contempt." Contempt does not 
seek to convince : contempt is content with its sneer. 
And to say this is no claim for myself of omniscience. 
It is simply a denial to some of my Christian brethren 
of the attribute of omniscience, even with reference to 



24 THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 

themselves — denial implied in a loyal and respectful 
endeavor on my part to show them that what they have, 
undoubtedly in good faith, thought to be obedience is 
not obedience ; that what they have honestly believed to 
be, with themselves, the true spirit of obedience is, in real- 
ity, not the spirit of obedience, but something else. I 
speak to the spirit of obedience in general, assumed to 
be in the heart of my brethren. I seek to convince 
that brotherly, that willing, that intelligent, spirit that 
in one certain particular it has failed to exercise itself. 
My very attempt implies respect and affection. I should 
have nothing to say on the point on which I am saying 
so much if I did not believe that at heart my brethren 
desired to obey. Let us have the mind of Christ, what- 
ever it is. But we need the mind of Christ to find the 
mind of Christ. How helpless we are ! But how rich 
in help ! 

In the second place, as to the true nature of the par- 
ticular command. Does the command, " Be baptized," 
require something done, merely — an opus operatum — 
or, rather, the doing of something ? Which is it, the 
fact or the act? Does the command mean, " Make 
sure that you be in the condition of one who at some 
time in the past has been baptized," " Secure the fact of 
having been baptized ;" or does it mean, " Become bap- 
tized," " Have yourself baptized," " Submit yourself 
to baptism," " Perform the act of being baptized " ? 
This is the alternative. According as we choose here, 
we decide absolutely whether persons baptized in their 
infancy may be said thus to have met the will of Christ. 
If Christ's will is simply that the state of having once 



THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 2$ 

been baptized shall be enjoyed by every Christian some- 
how, but not necessarily through the voluntary pro- 
curement of the subject, why, then the person baptized 
unawares in his infancy may be said to meet Christ's 
will. If, however, Christ's will be that every Christian 
shall consciously and purposely perform an act in his 
own baptism, why, evidently the person baptized in 
helpless infancy has not therein met Christ's will ; and 
he does not meet it until he deliberately has himself 
baptized. The question admits of no other alternative. 
Let us see. (It is constantly to be borne in mind that 
there is no point raised here as to what true baptism is, 
whether immersion or sprinkling. The present argu- 
ment would stand just the same if the command read 
" Be sprinkled," instead of " Be baptized.") 

Happily, the Greek language is less liable than is our 
own to any ambiguity here. Our expression " Be bap- 
tized " (or " sprinkled ") of course most naturally means 
" Have yourself baptized " (or " sprinkled "). But, then, 
it conceivably might mean, " Be, or remain, in a condi- 
tion of having been baptized." This sense, no doubt, 
is somewhat violent. But it is not absolutely excluded. 
If a command were issued in English in the terms " Be 
baptized," there would, let us acknowledge, be just a 
possible chance for the doubt whether one who had at 
some time involuntarily been baptized might not fulfil 
the command by simply remaining of consent (as he, 
however, could, indeed, not help remaining), in that 
sense, a baptized person. But the Greek imperative 
employed for the command "Be baptized" does not 
allow an alternative. It means one thing — one thing 

3 



2(5 THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 

only — and can mean nothing else. The question now 
is, What is that thing ? 

To express the very unlikely, the wellnigh solecistic, 
idea, " Be a baptized person," the Greek would appro- 
priate a peculiar form of the verb. It would use an 
imperative of the perfect tense, either in its simple form, 
or, perhaps more naturally, in a compound form of it, 
made up of two parts, one part a perfect passive parti- 
ciple meaning " having been baptized," and the other 
part the simple imperative of the verb " be." The ex- 
pression, in whichever form, would therefore exactly 
say, " Be having been baptized," " Have been baptized," 
or " Be a baptized person." Is it probable that such a 
command as this ever proceeded from God ? Still, to 
this command, supposed real, a person who had been 
baptized in infancy might claim that he is obedient in 
virtue of agreeing now, in his will, to what happened 
once without his will. If there were any such divine 
command as the one supposed, I grant that to such a 
command the spirit of obedience might almost, by ex- 
ception, adopt a foreign, a non-vernacular, language, 
and return for answer, " I am," instead of her vernac- 
ular " I will." 

But for the easier and more probable meaning, " Be 
baptized" — that is, " Become baptized," " Procure your- 
self to be baptized," "Have yourself baptized" — the 
Greek has a different form of expression. For this 
meaning it uses the simple aorist imperative. This 
imperative commands an act — an act conceived as 
occurring at a point of time, and at that point com- 
pleted and done with. Consequences may follow, a 



THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 27 

condition resulting from the act may be inevitable ; 
such condition, however, such consequences, the im- 
perative does not contemplate or imply. The bare act, 
that alone, separate from every state, concomitant, or 
resultant, is all that the form of the verb itself contains 
or implies. There is, accordingly, no room for doubt, 
since all ambiguity is excluded. 

Now, it is this particular form of the verb, the sim- 
ple aorist imperative, that is used for the command, 
" Be baptized." An act, therefore, is commanded. 
The circumstance that the command is in the passive 
voice is, of course, entirely irrelevant. A command 
not requiring an act of obedience is " unthinkable," 
this equally whether the command be grammatically 
active or passive. " Be baptized," as a command, at 
least means " Submit to be baptized." This submitting 
is an act, and that act is obedience. Without the will- 
ing performance of an act on the part of the person 
addressed in the command, the command is not 
obeyed. The sincere and earnest Paedobaptist has but 
to ask himself the question, " Have I ever performed 
the act commanded ?" — remembering, at the same time, 
conscientiously, that the act commanded is the act of 
being, or becoming, baptized, not the act, if that were 
possible, of having been baptized — in order to deter- 
mine with himself whether he has ever obeyed the 
command. The act required is that of submitting 
yourself to baptism. Did you ever submit yourself 
to baptism ? The command being, " Submit yourself 
to baptism," you cannot reply, " I am." The reply 
does not fit the command. The only obedient reply 



28 THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 

possible is " I will." Have you at any time returned 
this reply ? 

You may rejoin — as, of course, unless you are an ex- 
ceptional Paedobaptist (that is, unless you were sprink- 
led on conversion), I cannot conceive but, in honesty, 
you must — " No, I never did, acting of my own ac- 
cord, submit myself to baptism. I never consciously 
took the posture of purposed actual obedience to the 
command. This, indeed, is the truth, and I frankly 
confess it." You go farther, and say, " But I do not 
acknowledge that I am therefore disobedient. The 
truth of the matter is, I do not consider myself ad- 
dressed in the command, ' Be baptized.' If I consid- 
ered myself addressed in the command, I should cer- 
tainly perform the act commanded, and so render my 
obedience. As it is, I do not obey, because I do not 
feel commanded. It is no disobedience not to obey if 
one is not commanded." 

This reply to the argument of the present chapter 
is entirely intelligible. But the reply, let it be closely 
observed, admits that the command, " Be baptized," 
is not obeyed any longer by Paedobaptists in general — 
being not obeyed because not obligatory ; being not 
obligatory because not intended for persons baptized 
in their infancy. But that it is not intended for such 
persons is pure and absolute assumption, and assump- 
tion not only without scriptural reason in its favor, 
but without rational plausibility. If there had been 
a clause of exception, express or implied, inserted in 
the command — if the command had read, for instance, 
" Repent and be baptized, every one of you, unless 



THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 29 

you shall have been previously baptized in your in- 
fancy, in which case you must still repent, indeed, 
but you need not be baptized" — then the Psedobap- 
tist practice would require only one thing further, a 
somewhat serious thing, to be sure — namely, to show 
that sprinkling is baptism — in order to complete its 
own justification. But no such clause of exception oc- 
curs in the text itself of the command, nor in any form 
is contained elsewhere in Scripture whence it might 
be transferred and attached. 

" Yes, but," it is objected, " your implied demand 
that there should be an explicit clause of exception 
in favor of persons baptized in their infancy is unrea- 
sonable. There was introduced no clause of excep- 
tion like what you construct, for the sufficient reason 
that there were then no persons that had been bap- 
tized in their infancy to whom it could apply." 

Of course, I admit this statement of fact. I go 
beyond merely admitting it — I insist upon it; and I 
point out, further, a noteworthy additional fact. It 
is this : that at the very moment, of all others, in 
young church history, when infant baptism, as an 
ordinance of Christ, should seem likely to have ap- 
peared, if ever it was to appear at all, there is observ- 
able a pregnant silence on the subject in the Scripture 
narrative. Not quite absolute silence, either, if strong 
adverse implication may be deemed to break absolute 
silence. For these cautionary words occur, reporting 
the sequel of results that attended Peter's Pentecostal 
exhortation : "Then they that gladly received his word 
were baptized!' Since, however, there was confessedly, 
3 * 



30 THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 

on this occasion, no class of persons baptized in in- 
fancy to whom an exceptive clause based on that 
infant baptism could apply, it ought, at the very least, 
if Paedobaptist usage is to find valid support, to be 
shown from Scripture that such a class of persons 
was divinely desired and intended to arise. (Else 
the absence of the exceptive clause may best be ac- 
counted for by the divinely desired and intended non- 
existence of any class supposed to be excepted.) And 
how, I ask, can divine desire and intention of this 
kind — namely, that there should arise a class of per- 
sons baptized in their infancy — be shown ? In no 
way whatsoever, I am confident. 

But, in default of indication to that effect, supposing 
still that a class of persons to whom exception, on 
such a basis, was desired and intended by God to 
arise, how, then, I ask, should not the forecast of 
the Holy Spirit have provided for their future case 
by implying somewhere, somehow, in Scripture, an 
exemption in their favor from the obligation of the 
command, if it be indeed true that these persons, or 
any persons, were meant to be exempted ? 

I have two serious questions to propose : 

First, May not the spirit of obedience be deficient 
sometimes in not feeling itself obliged, as much as in 
not obeying when the obligation is recognized and 
confessed ? 

Second, Wherein does a system which scrupulously 
performs a rite without therein obeying any assign- 
able divine command or therein following any recog- 
nizable scriptural precedent ; which submits an uncon- 



THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 31 

scious object to a ritual observance, as if that ritual 
observance were the necessary condition of super- 
natural grace to that object; which ritually manipu- 
lates a subject without requiring, or even permitting, 
that subject so much as to say, " I agree to this 
ritual ;" which, in short, as to one particular thing, 
and that thing the half of all Christ's positive law, 
makes everything of ritual, and nothing of obedience, 
— wherein, I ask, does such a system differ essentially 
from Ritualism ? 



CHAPTER IV. 

THE TWO ORDINANCES APPOINTING BAPTISM. 

THE ORDINANCE " BAPTIZE." 

AN ordinance is properly something ordained — that 
is, commanded. In saying " properly " here, I 
mean originally, etymologically. An ordinance is, 
therefore, in its strict first sense a commandment — only 
that and all that, nothing more and nothing less and 
nothing else. Let us try changing, accordingly, for a 
moment, our customary expression, " ordinance of bap- 
tism," into the expression used in entitling this chapter. 
It may yield us some valuable results. The ordinance 
of baptism means the ordinance which consists in bap- 
tism. There is in Scripture one ordinance or rite of 
baptism, and but one. There are in Scripture two 
ordinances or commandments, and but two, respecting 
baptism. The two ordinances respecting baptism fix 
the one ordinance of baptism. 

The two scriptural ordinances respecting baptism 
exist in various forms of statement; but, whatever 
various forms of statement exist, they contain all of 
them the same substance. One of the two ordinances 
directs to " baptize ;" the other directs to " be baptized." 
The ordinance of baptism is constituted by these two 
ordinances respecting baptism. Besides these two ordi- 

32 



THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 33 

nances respecting baptism, there are in Scripture abso- 
lutely no other. Now, in order to determine what is the 
true ordinance 0/" baptism, evidently our just course is to 
study what are the real scriptural ordinances respecting 
baptism. Let us, then, proceed to examine these. 
They exist in three — perhaps four — distinguishable 
kinds of statement. 

First, and most direct, there are the imperative sen- 
tences respecting baptism uttered by Christ and his 
apostles. For example : " Teach all nations, baptizing 
them" (Matt, xxviii. 19); "Repent and be baptized, 
every one of you " (Acts ii. 38). Second, and scarcely 
less direct, there are the instructions of Christ and his 
apostles delivered in the didactic indicative mood. I 
discriminate this kind of statement to introduce what 
is perhaps the sole instance of it- — namely, " He that 
believeth and is baptized shall be saved " (Mark xvi. 16). 
I should not insist on this text, for the reason that some 
— perhaps quite needlessly — doubt its genuineness. 
Third, there are the authoritative examples of Christ 
and his inspired disciples contained in the inspired 
narratives of the New Testament. For example : 
" Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John " 
(John iv. 1); "And they went down both into the 
water, both Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized 
him " (Acts viii. 38). Fourth, there are the allusions 
and interpretations and applications — of value in pro- 
portion to the remote and incidental nature of their 
bearing — found in the inspired New Testament Epistles. 
For example : " One Lord, one faith, one baptism " 
(Eph. iv. 5) ; " Know ye not that so many of us as 

c 



34 THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 

were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his 
death ?" (Rom. vi. 3). For the purposes of this chapter 
we may confine ourselves to the first of these four kinds 
of statement, comprising those direct imperative sen- 
tences of Christ and Christ's apostles in which Christ's 
will concerning baptism is recorded. 

Here, in the first place, are clearly distinguishable two 
mutually related — in fact, reciprocally complementary 
— classes of commandment. On the one hand, there 
is a commandment addressed to a certain order of per- 
sons, directing them, on their part, to administer bap- 
tism ; or, more simply, to baptize. On the other hand, 
there is a commandment addressed to a certain dif- 
ferent order of persons, directing them, on their part, 
to receive the baptism administered ; or, more simply, 
to be baptized. These two mutually complementary 
classes of commandment, as I have said, exist in vari- 
ous forms of statement in Scripture; but, essentially, 
all forms of statement require the same things — namely, 
on the one side, the act of baptizing ; on the other, the 
act of being baptized. 

There might have been other ordinances in Scrip- 
ture respecting baptism — that is, other ordinances are 
conceivable — but, in point of fact, no others occur. 
Hence, " Baptize " and " Be baptized " — or, in other 
words, " Perform the act of baptizing " and " Per- 
form the act of being baptized " — may truthfully be 
styled the two scriptural ordinances respecting bap- 
tism. There might have been an ordinance, " Have 
certain persons baptized," but no such ordinance as 
this exists. There might have been an ordinance, " Be 



THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 35 

in the state of having been baptized," but no such 
ordinance as that exists. The two ordinances, " Per- 
form the act of baptism " and " Perform the act of being 
baptized," are the only ordinances to be found, in any 
form, in Scripture respecting baptism. 

We are ready now to look at those two chief places 
in Scripture where these two sole ordinances respect- 
ing baptism occur in their most direct and imperative 
form. Our object shall be to ascertain the true limits, 
as to persons and as to perpetuity of the obligation 
created, of the command or ordinance, " Be baptized." 

I divide the question, and confine myself to that 
branch of it which inquires, "What persons are prop- 
erly addressed in the commandment, however express- 
ed, ' Be baptized ' ?" for the reason that this is the really 
living and important issue involved. The point, " What 
persons are properly addressed in the commandment, 
however expressed, ' Baptize ' ?" excites, and deserves 
to excite, no special interest. Scripture seems to treat 
this as a point of little moment. Thus it is incident- 
ally said, in parenthesis, "Jesus made and baptized 
more disciples than John (though Jesus himself bap- 
tized not, but his disciples)." Again, Paul thanks God 
that he himself baptized none, or almost none, of the 
church at Corinth, to which he was writing. It is 
worth noting, however, and it pertains to our purpose, 
that, while a slight is thus put upon the matter of who 
baptized, there is, at the same time, in both cases, in 
the very fact that baptizing is mentioned at all, a 
striking implication of great importance attached, in 
the mind of the Spirit, to the matter of the baptizing 



$6 THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 

itself. Why was not the statement that Jesus " made 
disciples " allowed by the evangelist to stand alone as 
sufficient for the substance of the history ? Evidently 
because baptizing was an inseparable incident of 
making disciples. Baptizing was important enough 
to be invariably done, under our Lord's personal min- 
istry, as fast — and, of course, only so fast — as disciples 
were made, and then important enough, besides, to be 
distinctly, and, it might almost seem, superfluously, 
mentioned by the inspired narrator as having been 
done. Paul's allusion is equally unmistakable proof 
that baptism, in New- Testament times, clung to dis- 
cipleship, like shadow to its substance. Nothing can 
betray more clearly failure to appreciate the proportion 
and perspective in which baptism appears in Scripture 
than the disposition sometimes manifested to make 
baptism seem of trivial consequence. The very pas- 
sages perverted to favor this notion demonstrate the 
contrary with inexpugnable implication. 

The authoritative expression for that ordinance re- 
specting baptism which directs to administer it is found 
in the concluding verses of the last chapter of Matthew. 
Our concern with it here is simply to state clearly the 
implication it contains as to the persons to whom bap- 
tism is proper to be administered. A separate consid- 
eration will be given in succeeding chapters to the 
course of exegesis by which the implication here 
merely stated is unassailably established. The risen 
Lord, about now to ascend into heaven, says to his 
disciples, " Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, bap- 
tizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, 



THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 37 

and of the Holy Ghost, teaching them to observe all 
things whatsoever I have commanded you. And, 
lo ! I am with you alway, even unto the end of the 
world." 

The word " teach," occurring here twice, represents 
two different and discriminated words in the original 
Greek. " Teach all nations " means, to use a conve- 
nient coinage, " Disciple all nations." The first part, 
therefore, of the compound commandment is, " Go 
and convert all men, of whatever nation, into disciples 
to me." The second part is, " Baptize those thus con- 
verted." The third part is, " Teach comprehensive 
and exact obedience of my commandments to those 
thus first converted and then baptized." It is a re- 
markable thing, not to be left out of present regard, 
that a positive external ceremonial enactment or ordi- 
nance should be inserted here in so brief a summary, 
delivered under circumstances so august and imposing, 
of apostolic and evangelistic duty. That it is thus in- 
serted is significant of an importance given it in the 
design of the Lord that, with the prevalent lax instinct 
and habit, not to say self-sufficient conceit, of dispar- 
aging outward observances in religion as barren and 
indifferent, we should perhaps hardly have anticipated. 
The church of Christ, we should unhesitatingly predict, 
will never neglect baptism. And, true enough, the 
church never has neglected it. That is to say, the 
church, in all its branches — with the sole exception, 
so far as I know, of the Friends — has uniformly ob- 
served a rite that went by the title of " baptism." The 
name, at least, has never wanted its honor, if the thing 

4 



38 THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 

originally meant by the name has sometimes failed to 
receive its due of attention. 

Christ's disciples, then, were commanded by him, on 
this farewell occasion, to " disciple " and baptize. We 
need not here go into the subtleties and refinements of 
interpretation with which the true sense of the Great 
Commission, so called, has been perplexed and con- 
fused. It is sufficient for the moment to say that the 
persons put by it under obligation to be baptized were, 
first, disciples ; second, disciples of all nations ; third, 
disciples of every age of the world to the end of time. 
The duty created of being baptized — that is, of sub- 
mitting to baptism ; not of being in a baptized condi- 
tion, or, rather, in the condition of having once been 
baptized — devolved on persons that had first been made 
disciples ; it extended to persons of all nations answer- 
ing to this description ; and it was to remain binding 
to the end of the age. In short, baptism for disciples, 
and for no others — for disciples universally, and for 
disciples perpetually — was commanded in these solemn 
farewell words of Christ. 

We have thus sought to make clear the unquestion- 
able implication contained in the great ordinance of 
Christ which commands to baptize — the implication 
contained in it, I mean, respecting the persons upon 
whom the command was to be obeyed. It was upon 
persons who had previously been made disciples. 
Only such, but all such. No question is now raised 
as to what is the act of being baptized. That doubt 
may here sleep. The act, whatever it is, of being bap- 
tized is incumbent upon disciples. Disciples can be 



THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 39 

no other than persons capable of discipleship — that is, 
persons capable of being taught. Make disciples of, 
baptize, teach — that is Christ's order ; and Christ's 
order is as binding as the different things are, one by 
one, which he has set in that order. 

But there is a still plainer instruction for us — if in- 
struction can be plainer — in that commandment, com- 
plementary to the one thus far chiefly considered, which 
directly addresses the persons themselves to be bap- 
tized. That commandment I reserve for consideration 
in its due season. It constitutes the second and more 
important of the two scriptural ordinances respecting 
baptism. It is the ordinance, " Be baptized." 



CHAPTER V. 

THE TWO ORDINANCES APPOINTING BAPTISM 

(continued). 

THE ORDINANCE, " BE BAPTIZED." 

THERE are substantially two ordinances, and but 
two, in Scripture appointing baptism. The first is, 
"Baptize;" the second is, "Be baptized." The first of 
these two ordinances I have already examined. I pur- 
pose now examining the second. 

I undertake my present task with the same object 
with which I undertook the former. That object is 
single and simple. It is to ascertain from Scripture 
on what persons the ordinance " Be baptized " is bind- 
ing. 

Let us go at once to the ordaining words. These 
we find in the sequel to Peter's Pentecostal discourse. 
Here they are : " Repent and be baptized, every one of 
you." This is sufficiently explicit. No Christian doubts 
that here was created an obligation imperative upon 
every person addressed by Peter. As to what persons 
beyond these are bound by the obligation, Baptists and 
Psedobaptists differ. Baptists say, "All persons capable 
of understanding them, to whom the words come ; " 
Paedobaptists say, "All such persons, excepting those 
that may have been baptized in their infancy." The 

40 



THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 41 

chief dividing question between Baptists and Paedo- 
baptists is, " Is this exception scriptural ?" 

This, observe, is not the same as asking, " Is infant 
baptism scriptural ?" That question we will not now 
disturb ; let it sleep. We need ask only, " Is there a 
class of persons bound by the first part of the com- 
mand (' Repent and be baptized '), but not bound by 
the second ?" 

This is an entirely fair way of stating the question. 
For the controverted point, as here conceived, is not, 
" In what way may the obligation, admitted to be bind- 
ing, be discharged ?" but, " Upon what persons is the 
obligation really binding ?" I repeat it, therefore, the 
living issue in this matter is, " Is there a class of per- 
sons bound by one half of the command (' Repent and 
be baptized'), and not bound by the other half?" That 
is the true point to be decided. 

You, let us suppose, are met by the requirement, 
" Repent and be baptized." You answer, "As to being 
baptized, that part is for me already happily accom- 
plished. I was baptized while still an infant. The re- 
penting, however, I have yet to do." This, in effect, 
is the unconscious language of eveiy destined and he- 
reditary Psedobaptist up to the time of his conversion. 
At the time of his conversion — that is, be it borne in 
mind, at the moment when he exercises his very first 
impulse of obedience toward God — he, instead of obey- 
ing a certain perfectly plain command, contents him- 
self with saying, " That command is not binding upon 
me." 

But why, pray, not binding? Not, certainly, be- 
4* 



4 2 THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 

cause you have ever obeyed it. For you had never 
obeyed any command of God until you repented ; and 
as soon as you repented you said, " The command, ' Be 
baptized,' is not binding upon me." Not, therefore, 
because you have ever obeyed it, but because, before 
you exercised, or could exercise, any act whatever of 
obedience, an incident occurred at which you were, in- 
deed, personally present, but in which you yourself bore 
no part, except a perfectly passive and unconscious part, 
and which, of course, now you cannot even remember. 

Perhaps, however, you will be disposed to put your 
answer in another form. You will say, " It is not by 
the bare fact of my having involuntarily been baptized 
in infancy that I hold myself discharged from obliga- 
tion. No ; I add now a voluntary element of my own. 
I intelligently accept that former act of another as my 
present personal act. This subsequent ratification on 
my part is my obedience." 

But consider. That former act of another which 
you thus accept was not "being baptized." It was 
not, therefore — it could not be — obedience on that 
other's part to the command, " Be baptized." It was 
with him, if obedience at all, obedience to some com- 
mand — for instance, " Have this child baptized." For 
what that other person did was simply having you 
baptized. The minister, we will say, obeyed the 
ordinance, " Baptize." Your parents obeyed, suppose, 
an ordinance, " Have children baptized." The ordi- 
nance, " Be baptized," did not on occasion of your 
infant baptism — and, from the nature of the case, in 
that transaction it could not — get obeyed at all. You, 



THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 43 

accordingly, are placed in this remarkable position : 
You accept for your obedience to the command, " Be 
baptized," an act of another, which, if obedience at all 
on any one's part, must have been obedience to a com- 
mand substantially in these terms : ' Have this child 
baptized." God, that is, says to you, " Be baptized ;" 
and you say to God, " I accept for my obedience to 
this command my parents' act in once having had me 
baptized." What sort of obedience is this ? You ac- 
cept an act which another performs, but which the words 
in question, at least, do not command, either to that other 
or to yourself, or, in fact, to anybody — you accept this 
different act, performed by some one else, as your own 
performance of the particular inconvertible act expli- 
citly commanded to you. God says, " Do a specific 
thing ;" and you reply, " Another person has done 
something else, and I accept that as my obedience." 
Or perhaps you will give your reply a still different 
form. You will say, not, " I accept another's act as 
my own act," but, " I retrospectively accept my own 
former irresponsible act in being baptized, while an 
infant, as my present responsible act ; and that is my 
obedience." But the difficulty here is that, in being 
baptized when an infant, you did not yourself act at all. 
You were simply acted upon. There is no former act, 
therefore, of your own that you can now adopt. In 
this state of the facts what becomes of your obedi- 
ence ? It must be wholly inward and spiritual, and 
not physical and outward in any part. For there is no 
outward element, past or present, to which it can at- 
tach itself to find completeness. 



44 THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 

Your obedience, therefore, if you have, indeed, 
rendered obedience to the command, " Be baptized," 
bears no relation whatever to your infant baptism. 
That transaction has nothing to do with your obedi- 
ence. Your infant baptism may or may not have been 
right and scriptural. But, whether right and scriptural 
or not, it is, at any rate, in no conceivable way related, 
as obedience, to the command addressing you, and you 
alone, in the second person, " Be baptized." Your sole 
obedience, if you may be considered somehow to have 
obeyed, lies in a certain posture of your mind and will. 
It consists in saying within yourself, acquiescently and 
dutifully, " I have been baptized." No bodily act of 
yours, present or preceding, enters into it. It is all 
mental and subjective. You obey by inwardly con- 
sidering that you have obeyed. 

Reflect, now, a moment on the necessary implications 
of what you have thus far claimed for yourself. You 
began by denying that the command, " Be baptized," 
was obligatory upon you. In the course of giving 
your reasons for its not being obligatory, you un- 
awares confessed that it was obligatory, and claimed, 
besides, that you had in one or the other of two ways 
met its obligation — that is, either you have, by a subse- 
quent act of pure mental adoption, substituted for your 
own obedience to one command, " Be baptized," what 
somebody else once did in supposed obedience to a 
quite other command, " Have infants baptized ;" or, 
if not this, then, by an equally pure mental exercise, 
you have inwardly put a strictly imaginary former act 
of your own — imaginary, for, in reality, you performed 



THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 45 

no act — in place of a present act commanded, and in 
virtue of your very course of reply acknowledged by 
you to be of binding obligation upon you. 

Is it likely that our Lord intended a positive external 
ordinance of his to be thus fulfilled ? Does he desire 
a constructive obedience? By singular and solitary 
exception does he desire this, particularly in the matter 
of the commandment, " Be baptized " ? And if he 
does, by what information of Scripture has he made 
his desire known ? 

Bringing thus together the two sole scriptural ordi- 
nances respecting baptism — namely, " Baptize " and 
** Be baptized " — and examining them in comparison, we 
perceive that they have reference to the same class of 
persons — that they are correlative and complementary, 
the one answering exactly to the other. Whom Christ 
bids, on the one hand, " Be baptized," with reference 
to these it is that, on the other, Christ bids " Baptize." 
These, and besides these, none. But with reference to 
these he does not bid " Baptize " until, with reference 
to the same, he has first bidden " Make them disciples;" 
as likewise these he does not bid " Be baptized " until 
the same persons he has first bidden " Repent." If we 
baptize other persons than these, or if other persons 
than these are baptized, in either case no obedience is 
rendered ; for in neither case does any command exist 
to be obeyed. Such baptizing we may, indeed, call 
the " ordinance of baptism ;" but we then use the word 
" ordinance " in the secondary, derivative sense of 
" rite " simply. We quite deceive ourselves if we im- 
agine that our rite comes under any scriptural ordinance 



46 THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 

that exists respecting baptism. We fulfil a form, but 
we do not obey an ordinance. 

What is ritualism ? Is it practising rites without 
therein obeying divine ordinances ? 



CHAPTER VI. 
THE CONTEXT AS YOU UNDERSTAND IT. 

I MEAN the context of the precept, " Repent and 
be baptized, every one of you " — so much of the 
context, that is to say, as embraces the promise an- 
nexed. That portion of the context is this : " And ye 
shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost ; for the prom- 
ise is to you and to your children, and to all that are afar 
off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call." My 
object in the present chapter is to set forth a certain in- 
terpretation of the foregoing words adopted by many 
Psedobaptists, together with some of the reasons which 
render that interpretation inadmissible. 

First, their interpretation. This, if I rightly apprehend 
it, is as follows : Peter taught his inquiring hearers that 
they ought to repent, and then to be baptized. He as- 
sures them that thereupon the gift of the Holy Ghost 
would be imparted to them, but not to them alone. 
Their obedience would be efficacious to procure — po- 
tentially, at least — the same blessing also for their 
children. In consequence of this relation established 
between the obedience of parents and spiritual benefits 
thence accruing to children, a practical duty devolved 
upon parents — the duty of having their children bap- 
tized. 

47 



48 THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 

I have, I confess, experienced some difficulty in 
stating ari explanation which seems to me to err so wide- 
ly from the truth. If, however, I have failed to state the 
explanation fairly, it has, at least, been from no con- 
scious wish. to put it at any avoidable disadvantage. I 
proceed to mention a few considerations tending, as I 
think, to show that this explanation is not worthy of 
the wide acceptance it has gained. 

In the first place, the word " children," as here used 
by Peter, means " posterity," " descendants," in the 
large, indefinite, remote sense, and not immediate off- 
spring of a second generation. This is matter of gen- 
era] agreement among authorities (see, for example, 
Robinson's Lexicon of New-Testament Greek) ; but it is 
further clear from the fact that Peter's word "children " 
is evidently used by Peter in the same sense with rela- 
tion to his own audience as was Joel's expression 
" sons " and " daughters " by Joel with relation to his 
in the particular prophecy which Peter is engaged in 
explaining and applying. But Joel's expression is au- 
thoritatively interpreted by Peter to refer to those whom 
he himself is this moment addressing — that is, to de- 
scendants of Joel's contemporaries, removed from 
Joel's time by the space of not less than twenty gene- 
rations. Joel's expression " sons " and " daughters " 
did, indeed, include children of the second generation, 
for it included children of every subsequent generation, 
beginning from the date of first prophetic fulfilment. 
It included infant children too, for it included all chil- 
dren ; but it did not include infant children as infants, 
but infant children regarded prospectively, regarded in 



THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 49 

anticipation — that is, infant children as grown-up chil- 
dren to be ; " young men " some of them, " old men " 
some of them, Joel expressly specifies. 

In the second place, if the word " children " here 
could be admitted, as it manifestly cannot, to mean off- 
spring of a second generation, brothers and sisters of 
a single family — though it then might, indeed, mean 
the grown-up children among these — it still could not 
mean the infant (non-speaking) children while infants 
additionally; much less the infant children particularly; 
least of all, the infant children exclusively; for the 
very sufficient reason that the only " children " had in 
view by Peter, and by Joel before Peter, were " sons " 
and " daughters " old enough to " prophesy," to " see 
visions," and to " dream dreams." 

In the third place, Peter no more implies that, if his 
hearers obey, their " children," old or young, near or 
remote, should be thereby entitled to peculiar privileges, 
than he implies that "all that are afar off" should be en- 
titled to peculiar privileges if his hearers obey. It is just 
as much said, " The promise is to you and to all that are 
afar off," as it is said, " The promise is to you and to 
your children." The connection in thought — the con- 
nection of cause and consequence — is the same for one 
case as it is for the other. Whatever effect is taught by 
this passage to be, through parents' obedience, commu- 
nicated to their " children," that same effect, the passage 
equally teaches, is, through these parents' obedience, 
communicated also to all other persons, without respect 
to mutual relationship of kindred. 

" Ah ! but you forget," objects some justly watchful 

5 T) 



50 THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 

Paedobaptist ; " there is an important qualification added 
to the last clause. It is said by Peter, 'All that are 
afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call! " 
Yes, it undoubtedly is. But the limitation thus ap- 
pended affects equally each one also of the two fore- 
going clauses. It means, " You, even as many of you 
as the Lord our God shall call," and, " Your children, 
even as many of your children as the Lord our God 
shall call," no less than it means, " All that are afar off, 
even as many of such as the Lord our God shall call." 
To suppose that while, on the one hand, with reference 
to all that are afar off, it means those only who shall 
be called by God, still, on the other, it means the 
promise belongs to you and to your children, irre- 
spective of the divine call, — this is clearly inadmissible. 
No ; the call of God is as necessary to one class as it 
is to either of the others. They all of them need the 
divine call, and they all need it alike. And when we 
consider what the divine call spoken of here probably 
is — that it is "Repent and be baptized" — this con- 
sideration alone limits the application of the whole 
passage, precept and promise together, to such per- 
sons only as are naturally capable of receiving a divine 
call to repentance and baptism. Infants thus, as in- 
fants, are completely excluded — not, thank God ! as I 
trust, from Christ's grace and the hope of salvation, 
but from any possible part in the reference of this par- 
ticular passage. But, supposing this all to be other- 
wise, and supposing some transcendent relation to be 
indeed indicated here as existing between parents and 
their children in the matter of religion, still, how does 



THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 5 I 

it follow thence that therefore the children should be 
baptized ? — especially how that infant children, but 
more especially infant children only, should be bap- 
tized ? The necessity — nay, even the plausibility — of 
the sequence here is obscure. 

A fourth consideration weighing against the current 
Paedobaptist explanation of this important passage is 
the following : Peter's immediate hearers were Jews 
and Jewish proselytes. Now, if Peter held out to 
them, on behalf of their children, some benefit not 
made common also to them that were " afar off," — that 
is, Gentiles, — how is it that we, Gentiles, can any of us 
claim a share in such peculiar and exclusive benefit ? 
Peter did not, as I believe, put any difference here be- 
tween Jew and Gentile in favor of the Jew. But if he 
did, still we, certainly, sinners of the Gentiles, have no 
profit of the difference. But to talk of such difference 
is utterly idle. Nay, the apostle instead at a stroke ob- 
literated difference and made all one in Christ. He 
proclaimed one gospel, the same to all men, of what- 
ever race, of whatever time. God's call is everywhere 
and for ever to all men individually, and independently 
of one another : " Repent and be baptized, every one 
of you." Nothing that any one else may have done 
to me or for me or in my name, nothing that I myself 
ever did before I repented, has the least effect to make 
void the perpetual and untransferable obligation that 
is mine to obey that indivisible, twofold call of God 
bidding me " be baptized " as much as it bids me " re- 
pent." There is but one conceivable discharge of the 
obligation ; and that discharge is obedience. But 



52 THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 

obeyed I have not, obey I cannot, the command, " Be 
baptized," until I have first repented ; for repentance is 
necessarily the first obedience that apostate man can 
possibly pay to God. 

We resume, and conclude accordingly as follows : 

First, no connection — absolutely none whatsoever 
— productive of consequences affecting other persons 
than the persons themselves immediately obliged by 
the commandment is hinted at by Peter in this passage 
as existing between any two classes referred to in it. 

Secondly, supposing, however contrary to fact, that 
some such connection was implied, still, there is cer- 
tainly no such connection implied to exist between, for 
instance, Peter's immediate hearers and their descend- 
ants that is not also implied to exist between Peter's 
immediate hearers and all other persons indiscrimi- 
nately ; for the implying words, if any, are these : " To 
you, and to your children, and to all," in which " to 
you " is coupled with "to all " as much as it is coupled 
with " to your children." 

But if — as has, however, been shown to be impossible 
— there were some such peculiar connection implied 
between Peter's immediate hearers and their descend- 
ants, still this would be a connection with which we 
of our race could have nothing to do, inasmuch as 
whatever distinction is made between Jews and Jewish 
proselytes on the one hand, and Gentiles on the other, 
is with discrimination, if with any discrimination, ex- 
clusively in favor of the former class. If it is indicated 
here that there is a boundary drawn somewhere within 
which beneficent consequences may descend from an- 



THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 53 

cestors to posterity, then we certainly, as Gentiles 
[" all that are afar off"], are outside of that boundary ; 
for " to you and to your children " is said by Peter to 
Jews, as distinguished from Gentiles. 

Fourthly, but if, once more, in defiance of all prob- 
ability — for what is more improbable than that a dis- 
crimination in blessing should be instituted, to be in- 
stantly abolished ? — suppose, I say, it were conceded 
that the peculiar hereditary consequences imagined, 
whatever they might be, are, in the intention of the 
Spirit, transferred, without notice, from Jew to Gentile, 
or suddenly, and equally without notice, made common 
to Gentile with Jew, still, the posterity to inherit the 
consequences would not be immediate children only, 
brothers and sisters of the next generation, but pos- 
terity in the largest sense. Baptism, accordingly, would 
pertain as a right to all descendants of those first hear- 
ers of the gospel, irrespective entirely of the immedi- 
ate parents from whom the descendants might be 
sprung. 

Fifthly, but if, yet again, immediate children only, 
and not indefinite posterity, were granted to be meant, 
and to be meant for Gentiles together with Jews, then 
the inclusion would be of all children, and not of in- 
fant children merely ; so that, on this hypothesis, sim- 
ilarly, as soon as a father was converted, baptism in- 
stantly would become due to all his children, adult 
equally with infant. 

It thus appears that, in order to find infant baptism 
contained in this place of Scripture, we have to make 
a number of impossible suppositions, and end, besides, 

5 * 



54 THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 

in finding much more than we sought, and much more 
than it is at all agreeable to any of us to find. 

But I have yet to state a serious additional difficulty 
to be surmounted. For, however inclusive we make 
the scope of the passage for the sake of including in- 
fants, we are surprised to discover that from even so 
wide an inclusion infants are shut out at last ; for the 
connection shows that only such children- are thought 
of by Peter as are capable of speaking to " prophesy." 
It has been as if a fisherman, seeking to make sure of 
his draught, had stretched his net until the minnows 
for the sake of which he drew escaped through the 
meshes. 

But, finally, even were infant baptism, against all these 
impossibilities, to be regarded as established, it would still 
remain unproved and improbable that infant baptism 
was designed by Christ to vacate any part of the com- 
mandment, " Repent and be baptized, every one of 
you." 

In contrast with such a difficult, contradictory, self- 
confuting interpretation of this noble passage of Scrip- 
ture stands out in bold and simple clearness and strength 
the self-evidencing true view — namely, that what Peter 
said to one he said to all : " Repent and be baptized." 
This message is for you, every one ; for your children, 
every one ; and, finally, for those afar off, every one. 
The same thing, undivided, unchanged, to as many as 
the Lord our God shall call. The divine call is con- 
veyed in the precept ; the precept is, " Repent and be 
baptized;" the promise appended is, "Ye shall receive 
the gift of the Holy Ghost." The word, to be sure, is 



THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 55 

not, " Without these two things — repentance and bap- 
tism, both of them — you shall not receive the Holy 
Ghost." With repentance only, as we think — even with 
baptism only, as some think, but not Baptists — many do 
receive the gift. But the spirit of obedience does not 
rejoice in your enjoying the promise without fully dis- 
charging the precept. The spirit of obedience is a gen- 
erous spirit, and it does not find God's commandments, 
any of them, grievous. It rejoices in enjoying, but it 
rejoices even more, if possible, in obeying. 



CHAPTER VII. 

THE CONTEXT AS WE UNDERSTAND IT. 

AGAIN I mean the context of the precept, " Repent 
and be baptized." What light does this context 
throw upon the question of the extent to which the 
precept preceding is still applicable and obligatory ? 
There is a Baptist and there is a Paedobaptist view of 
the matter. I seek in this chapter to present the 
Baptist view. 

Paedobaptists, in order to justify their present actual 
practice in the matter of baptism, have three distinct 
and independent tasks of proof to perform : First, they 
must prove that sprinkling is baptism ; second, they 
must prove that Christ meant to have infant children 
baptized; third, when these two things are done, they 
must proceed still further to prove that Christ meant to 
exempt persons thus baptized, without act of their own, 
in unconscious infancy, from the duty of fulfilling the 
precept, " Repent and be baptized, every one of you," 
by being baptized, of their own act on subsequent re- 
pentance. 

As to the first of these three tasks of proof incumbent 
on Paedobaptists — that, namely, which deals with the 
question, What act is commanded in the commandment 
' Be baptized '?" — I have nothing here to say. Let it 

56 



THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. $7 

be supposed to be admitted for the moment that sprink- 
ling is baptism. I direct my attention exclusively now 
to the other two questions — namely, first, " Did Christ 
mean that parents should have their infant children bap- 
tized?" and, secondly, "Did Christ mean that persons 
who had thus been baptized while infants, on motion 
of their parents, should not afterward, on their own 
motion, be baptized in immediate sequel to repent- 
ance ?" 

We are now to seek light on these two questions by 
examining carefully the appendix to the precept, " Re- 
pent and be baptized." It is here proposed, in other 
words, to consider the precept in the light of the prom- 
ise appended. 

Distinct and independent I call the two questions 
thus stated ; for it by no means follows as a thing of 
course, infant baptism being supposed clearly made 
out to be divinely ordained, that therefore infant bap- 
tism was divinely intended, in the case of those who 
have received it, to supersede and displace baptism on 
repentance. I put the inconsequence thus again, and 
expressly, for the reason that it seems to me to be a 
point of some importance, which my Paedobaptist 
brethren overlook. They content themselves with 
proving to their own satisfaction that the practice of in- 
fant baptism has foundation in Scripture, and they then 
too easily assume, without even the effort to prove, 
that such baptism in infancy was meant by Christ to 
take the place of baptism after repentance, and even 
to prevent that. But this, surely, is a large assump- 
tion ; and an assumption, too, I will venture to say, 



58 THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 

without much plausibility of any kind in its favor. 
It is, I admit, supposable that a rite of dedication for 
infant children might have been appointed by Christ 
to parents, and appointed, too, in the form of a bap- 
tism. This, of course, is nowhere in the New Testa- 
ment said to have happened ; but, had it happened, it 
is then still further quite equally supposable that this 
was done by Christ without any design on his part to 
interfere thereby with the subsequent duty of the un- 
conscious subjects of the right to obey, like others, in 
the true sequence of its parts and in its unshorn com- 
pleteness, the precept, " Repent and be baptized," 
which is apparently, by its terms, obligatory upon 
all. Indeed, this latter supposition is antecedently 
far more probable than the alternative supposition 
adopted by Paedobaptists. If circumcision, as Paedo- 
baptists generally maintain, is the analogue and type 
of infant baptism, then the probability in favor of the 
substitute supposition here suggested rises almost to 
the degree of certainty. For those persons, remem- 
ber, to whom Peter first said, " Repent and be bap- 
tized" had — most, if not all of them — been circum- 
cised. Those persons, therefore, according to the 
accepted Paedobaptist hypothesis, represent that class 
among us who receive baptism in their infancy. But 
to these circumcised persons, supposed thus to repre- 
sent persons baptized in their infancy, Peter said, 
" Repent and be baptized." Does not Christ by Peter 
still proclaim to persons who received, suppose, bap- 
tism instead of circumcision when they were infants, 
the same unchanged and uniform summons designed 



THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 59 

for all : " Repent and be baptized" ? If he does not, 
how is it made plain that he does not ? 

But, in the way of studying afresh the real scope 
and intent of Peter's appendix of promise to precept 
in addressing his Pentecostal hearers, let us begin by 
considering the object with which the promise was 
appended. Why did Peter promise as well as com- 
mand ? His purpose, manifestly, was twofold. First, 
he wished to encourage his inquiring hearers to do 
what he bade them do — namely, " Repent and be 
baptized." To compass this aim, it was natural to 
remind them of a blessing conditioned upon obedi- 
ence. On condition of obedience, he said, they too 
should receive, as he himself, with his fellow-disciples, 
had received, the gift of the Holy Ghost. By way of 
confirming this assurance, Peter added that the prom- 
ise in question — that is, the promise of the Holy 
Ghost's bestowal — was from the first expressly des- 
tined and inscribed to them. He went farther than 
this, to be sure, and said something more ; but thus 
much completes that part of what he said which had 
reference directly and exclusively to his hearers them- 
selves. 

It might, however, strengthen their sense of cer- 
tainty in this matter somewhat — might make them 
feel themselves more unquestionably included within 
the scope of the promise — if they could know that 
the promise opened wide its beneficent embrace to 
include not them alone, but with them all generations 
of their posterity, and even all races of men. Peter, 
accordingly, goes on to say that the prophet Joel's 



60 THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 

promise of the Holy Ghost, ready now to be bestowed 
upon condition of obedience to the command, " Re- 
pent and be baptized," was valid, not simply to them, 
but to their descendants as well, and, in fact, to all 
men, however far removed from the likelihood of 
such a blessing — all men to whom the divine sum- 
mons, " Repent and be baptized," should come. " For 
the promise " — these are his words — " is to you and to 
your children [posterity, descendants], and to all that 
are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall 
call." 

We thus exhaust, so I believe, the primary purpose 
of these words — that purpose of them which con- 
cerned Peter's immediate hearers only. This primary 
purpose was simply to encourage those hearers to 
obedience. 

But a larger purpose of the words remains to be 
noted. Peter was that day using the power of the 
keys. He was opening the dispensation of the gos- 
pel, the new dispensation presided over by the Holy 
Ghost. It became him, therefore, to adapt his in- 
structions to universal application. This, no doubt, 
was, as regarded the future, the paramount, though 
for a moment the secondary, purpose with which 
Peter appended the promise to his precept. In 
accordance with this purpose, he employed a form of 
language expressly directed to show that what he, 
Peter, thus taught inquiring Jewish listeners to the 
gospel at Jerusalem was what inquiring listeners to 
the gospel, Jewish or Gentile, should thenceforth, 
everywhere and always, by whatsoever preacher, be 



THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 6 1 

taught. The following, in effect, is his language : 
" You ask us what you shall do. I reply, ' Repent 
and be baptized.' On this condition you shall be 
made — you together with us — partakers of the Holy 
Ghost. This is what the prophet Joel meant in the 
prediction of which I have been speaking. The 
prophet Joel predicted to the Israelites of his time 
that their sons and their daughters — their children, 
their descendants, that is to say — should receive an 
effusion of the Holy Ghost inspiring them to prophesy. 
This prediction is now in course of fulfilment before 
your eyes. What you this day behold in us, the 
apostles of Jesus, is a part of that fulfilment. But 
only a part, for the promise is also to you as well as 
to us. Repent and be baptized, and the blessing ex- 
tends at once to you. Nor is this the whole : the same 
is true for your descendants as for yourselves. The 
precept, ' Repent and be baptized,' the promise, ' You 
shall then receive the Holy Ghost,' are valid still for 
your posterity. The blessing and the condition of 
the blessing alike are for generation after generation 
succeeding you in a continuous line of descent till the 
end. But yet more : the application widens as well as 
lengthens. It goes on all sides to Gentiles at the same 
time that it goes forward down to successive genera- 
tions of Jews — one and the same thing to all men. 
Let every man ' repent and be baptized,' and every man 
thereupon shall receive the Holy Ghost — the same 
promise, on the same terms, of the same blessing, to 
all people of all times and all races." 

Such, substantially, was, as I understand it, the pur- 



62 THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 

port of Peter's reply to his inquiring Pentecostal 
hearers. Unless the light thus gathered from the 
promise to be reflected upon the precept has suffered 
some distortion from the straightness of the truth in 
passing through the lens of my interpretation, it is 
perfectly manifest that, however unmistakably present 
elsewhere in Scripture it may be, infant baptism is in 
no way, even remotely, to be detected in this particular 
passage. The explanation given seems to me to pos- 
sess the self-evidencing power which belongs only to 
truth. But a different explanation is widely, not to say 
generally, accepted among Paedobaptists, which on 
that account deserves serious and careful considera- 
tion. This different explanation, with the reasons — at 
least, some of them — which I regard as conclusive 
against it, will form the topic of a succeeding chapter. 



CHAPTER VIII. 

THE GREAT COMMISSION: WHAT IT TEACHES CON- 
CERNING BAPTISM. 

I. 

THE MEANING OF THE EXPRESSION, " TEACH ALL 
NATIONS." 

THE Great Commission — so called — contained in 
the concluding verses of Matthew's Gospel, con- 
sists of three parts : First, a kind of preface very 
briefly expressed ; secondly, a treble command ; and 
thirdly, a confirmatory promise. We have here to do 
only with the command. The command is in the 
following language : " Teach all nations, baptizing 
them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and 
of the Holy Ghost : teaching them to observe all 
things whatsoever I have commanded you." The 
Greek for the first verb " teach" is a word peculiar, in 
this sense of it, to the New Testament. Ordinarily, 
the verb means "to be a disciple" or "learner." It 
here means "to make a disciple" or " learner." We 
may awkwardly imitate the word by translating " dis- 
ciple" instead of "teach." 

Two questions now arise bearing upon the subject 
proposed in the present discussion : First, Exactly 
what is the import of the word " disciple," here used 

63 



64 THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 

as a transitive verb ? Secondly, What is the relation 
between the action expressed by the imperative " dis- 
ciple" and the actions expressed by the two parti- 
ciples following — namely, " baptizing," "teaching"? 
These two questions will respectively form the topics 
of the present chapter and a chapter to follow. 

Our first question, then, is, Precisely what are we to 
understand by the word " disciple," here used as a 
verb ? This, it may be remarked, is a point which 
the student familiar only with English is as well 
qualified to determine as is the Greek scholar. There 
is quite the same relation between the English noun 
and its derivative verb as between the two words cor- 
responding in the original Greek. Convert the Eng- 
lish noun " disciple " into a transitive verb, and you 
have done almost exactly what Jesus did with the 
Greek noun equivalent when he said, " Disciple all 
the nations." He meant " Make disciples of" — just 
that, and nothing else. 

But now what does the noun "disciple" mean in 
the New-Testament use of it ? What the noun means 
will, of course, fix what the verb means. One of two 
things a "disciple" must be: either, first, a person 
who simply listens to a teacher for the purpose of 
understanding what the teacher says ; or else, secondly, 
a person who, besides seeking to understand a teacher, 
takes the further step of adopting what the teacher 
teaches as true. Of these two senses, which does the 
word " disciple " bear in the New Testament ? The 
answer is clear : The latter. " Disciple " in the New 
Testament means one who — ostensibly, at least — 



THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 65 

adopts the teachings of a teacher as true. If there 
is any exception to this rule, I, at least, know of 
none. At any rate, in the immense majority of in- 
stances the rule holds good. The discrimination be- 
tween the loose and the more strict application of the 
word is even very sharp. Take a few instances. Jesus 
had been speaking to large audiences. " The dis- 
ciples" it is then recorded, " came and said unto him, 
Why speakest thou unto them in parables? He an- 
swered and said unto them, Because it is given unto 
you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, 
but to them it is not given." This is in the thirteenth 
chapter of Matthew. Here the distinction is tensely 
drawn between one class of hearers and another class. 
Of these two classes, one class only are called " dis- 
ciples," though both classes alike were hearers, in the 
sense of listening to the teacher and seeking to under- 
stand what he taught. Again, in the fifteenth chapter 
of the same Gospel, "Jesus called his disciples unto 
him and said, I have compassion on the multitude, 
because they continue with me now three days and 
have nothing to eat." Here is a case in which the 
general mass of the Lord's hearers, although they had 
been with him in that relation three days, are mark- 
edly distinguished from his " disciples," strictly so 
called. Luke, in his fourteenth chapter, reports 
Christ speaking as follows : " If any man come to 
me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, 
and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his 
own life also, he cannot be my disciple." From these 
instances (and the number might be multiplied, while 

6 * E 



66 THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 

no instances, I believe, can be adduced looking in a 
different direction) it will appear that the word " dis- 
ciple," in the New-Testament use of it, meant, not a 
casual hearer of Christ, and not even a hearer that 
may have heard him day after day, but a hearer that, 
besides hearing him, at least professed acceptance of 
his doctrines. We hence gather that to " disciple " 
persons to a teacher meant to make those persons 
accept that teacher's doctrine for truth. If we ex- 
amine the few other cases in which the same verb 
"disciple" occurs in the New Testament in a similar 
use, we shall find confirmation of this view. Thus 
in the fourteenth chapter of the Acts we meet with 
this : " And when they had evangelized [preached the 
gospel to] that city and had discipled many." Here 
the general idea of proclaiming the gospel to multi- 
tudes of hearers is discriminated from the particular 
idea of " discipling " certain ones out of the multitudes. 
We conclude with great confidence that when, in the 
Great Commission, Christ bade, " Disciple all the na- 
tions," his thought was not of proclaiming the gospel 
universally, so much as it was of everywhere making 
men accept the gospel. To be sure, the gospel was to 
be universally proclaimed. The idea of universality 
is contained in the expression " all the nations." Still, 
the thing that was to be universal is not proclaiming, 
but discipling. All men were embraced in the com- 
mand ; no doubt of that. Not, however, as persons to 
be made hearers merely of the gospel ; rather as per- 
sons to be made obedient hearers of the gospel — that 
is, disciples in the strict sense. Christ did not here 



THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 67 

enjoin preaching to all men, but discipling all men. 
Not the means — namely, preaching, teaching — but the 
end — namely, discipling, converting — was chiefly in his 
mind. It would not satisfy the conception of Christ 
for the apostles to run through the world of mankind 
announcing the gospel. Christ said, " Disciple all the 
nations," not in the sense of making all the nations 
learn what he had taught, but in the sense of making 
all the nations believe what he had taught, and behave 
themselves accordingly. Make real disciples, make 
converted men, make Christians of all men. Not, 
Preach to everybody for the sake of making every- 
body Christians ; but, Make everybody Christians. 
The intentness of the Lord's mind led him to enjoin 
the end, not the means. His thought overleaped the 
intervening steps of method and went at once to the 
result. He says nothing of how the thing was to be 
done. All he says is, Do the thing. And the thing 
he says Do is to make true, believing, obedient disciples 
of all men. Thus much is rendered certain by the 
Saviour's choice of the word " disciple " to express his 
thought. 

We have thus answered our first question — namely, 
just what is to be understood by the command, " Dis- 
ciple all the nations." Now, therefore, we are pre- 
pared to take up our second question, In what relation 
do the following participles, "baptizing," "teaching," 
stand to the principal imperative verb, " disciple " ? 
This second question will be discussed in a separate 
chapter. 

Let it not be supposed that so much care has been 



68 THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 

fruitlessly devoted to a barren, mere verbal discussion. 
We are seeking the thought of Christ in an utterance 
of his as solemn and important as any recorded in the 
Bible. It is of supreme moment that we know what 
he meant. And what he meant in the whole of this 
weighty commandment depends very greatly upon 
what he meant in using that one particular word, 
" disciple," at the outset. The vital relation of that 
one particular word to the interpretation of what fol- 
lows will be clearly seen when we come to consider 
our second question, which, having stated it, I reserve, 
as already suggested, for subsequent examination. 

Before dismissing the question of the true meaning 
of " disciple," a remark or two may relevantly be made 
on a possible alternative sense for the word. The 
sense herein claimed for it may be held, while yet the 
baptizing is regarded as a means to the accomplishment 
of the discipling. This, however, is possible only on 
the presupposition of what is called baptismal regen- 
eration ; in other words, the idea that the act of bap- 
tizing works a spiritual change in the subject apart 
from any share of his own in the transaction. It is 
hardly worth while to argue with a person that takes 
this view — or, at least, I do not here suppose myself 
to be in discussion with such a person. 

But there is a different sense of the word " disciple," 
which, if not scriptural and true, is certainly quite con- 
ceivable. The word " disciple " may conceivably mean, 
" Put under tuition," " Bring into the relation of dis- 
ciple;" as, for instance, a little child may be called the 
disciple, or pupil, of a teacher whose peculiar teaching 



THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 6g 

he neither accepts nor rejects, but is simply in course 
of learning by the will of another and without consent 
of his own. 

This, I repeat, is a perfectly intelligible sense of the 
word rendered " teach " in the beginning of the Great 
Commission : " Teach all nations ;■" " Regard all na- 
tions, treat them, as disciples ;" " Set them in a course 
of learning from Christ as Master, and keep them in 
it." Suppose this definition granted ; why, then, go on 
to baptize? I say "^ on to baptize;" for, observe, 
even according to this Paedobaptist definition of the 
word " teach " or " disciple," the discipling precedes 
the baptizing. " We treat people as disciples by bap- 
tizing them," Paedobaptists say. Admitted. You bap- 
tize them as disciples. They are disciples, and you 
signify their discipleship by baptizing them. 

There is thus, after all, no issue between Baptists and 
Paedobaptists as to the true order in time of disciple- 
ship and baptism. Both sides agree that discipleship 
is first. The real point in dispute is, What is disciple- 
ship, in Christ's sense of the word " disciple," as here 
employed ? Did Christ mean by " Disciple all na- 
tions," merely this: " Put all nations under Christian 
instruction"? If so, then Baptists surely are wrong; 
but if so, the Paedobaptists surely are very inconsist- 
ent — that is to say, all Paedobaptists except Roman 
Catholics. Christ's Great Commission to his church, 
if the word in it, " Teach," " Make disciples of," means 
simply, " Bring under Christian tuition," has never been 
obeyed, in its true logical inclusion, by any body of 
professed Christians but Roman Catholics. We, all of 



70 THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 

us on this hypothesis, ought to baptize, as Rome does, 
by the nation, and not by the individual. Baptism 
should not be limited to infants — much less to infants 
having Christian parents — but be extended without 
qualification to all persons of every age that hear 
Christian instruction. This, and nothing short of 
this, is the logic of Paedobaptist exegesis. Here are 
the very words of a late quasi-authoritative apology for 
infant baptism : " And so there is nothing to show that 
' discipling ' the nations would not be wisely and thor- 
oughly accomplished by ' baptizing ' and ' teaching ' 
them in the very way in which other Christian denom- 
inations than Baptists [by eminence, the Church of 
Rome] now do — through preaching the gospel and by 
infant and adult baptism." 

In the presence of such doctrine who is prepared to 
say that Baptist testimony, resisting unto " strict com- 
munion," is not still needed on behalf of the principle 
of a regenerate church-membership ? Sincere, thought- 
ful students of the New Testament will surely perceive 
that the question of the present chapter — namely, the 
real meaning of Christ's word " disciple " in the Great 
Commission — is still one of vital moment to the Chris- 
tian church. 



CHAPTER IX. 

THE GREAT COMMISSION: WHAT IT TEACHES CON- 
CERNING BAPTISM. 

II. 
THE RELATION BETWEEN " DISCIPLING " AND " BAP- 
TIZING." 

WE have examined the Great Commission to settle 
the meaning of " disciple " in it ; we are now to 
consider the relation between " discipling " and " bap- 
tizing," as this relation is exhibited in the same passage 
of Scripture. It will necessarily be a somewhat close 
and careful grammatical discussion, that upon which 
we thus enter. The discussion will not, however, be 
such as not to be quite intelligible to any average 
reader that will give his thought patiently to the 
subject. 

In the Greek, as in the English, the three specifica- 
tions which occur in the Great Commission are ex- 
pressed by a verb followed by two participles. The 
verb is " disciple ;" the participles are " baptizing," 
" teaching." Whereas, we have discussed a question 
of etymology to ascertain the precise sense of " dis- 
ciple," we come now to discuss a question of syntax 
to ascertain the true relation in which the two parti- 
ciples stand to the verb that precedes them. 

71 



72 THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 

If we confine our consideration to the verb and the 
participles alone, we shall find that, according to the 
laws of Greek grammar, any one of four distinguishable 
views may fairly be maintained. 

First, it may be held that the participles express the 
means by which the action of the principal verb is to 
be effected, as if the passage read, " Disciple all the 
nations by baptizing them and by teaching them." 
Such is the view very commonly, if not prevailingly, 
maintained by Paedobaptist authorities. This view 
lends color of plausibility to the Paedobaptist doctrine 
concerning the proper order of precedence as between 
baptism and faith. If discipling is to be accomplished 
by baptizing as a means, why clearly we can no longer 
deny that baptizing may justly sometimes precede faith 
in the subject. There even remains no reason why 
baptism should not be given to infants. In short, let 
the Paedobaptist interpretation of this passage once be 
shown to be not merely possible, but certain, and the 
Baptist position is effectually and finally overthrown. 
At least, under such an interpretation, I see but one 
way of still saving the Baptist position. That way is 
to hold that " baptizing " is used here by the Lord in 
a figure, to mean, not, primarily, the rite of baptism, 
but, primarily, what " baptizing " always presupposed 
— namely, the previous conversion of the subject. 
When a bereaved parent says, " I have buried my 
children," the meaning is not, primarily, burial, but 
death presupposed in burial. No one can maintain 
that this figure would be at all violent or unnatural 
here ; indeed, there is much to be said in favor of so 



THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 73 

understanding the language. Thus would be explained 
what surely needs explanation — the occurrence of al- 
lusion to an outward rite in the Great Commission. 
But this interpretation, however the word " baptizing " 
be understood, cannot be demonstrated as certain, for 
the following reason at least, that there are several 
other interpretations equally tenable with that — equally 
tenable, I mean, on grounds of the Greek syntax for 
participles in connection with verbs. But there are 
other grammatical considerations than the law of the 
Greek participles — one consideration in particular about 
to be adduced — which make strongly against the Psedo- 
baptist interpretation of this great passage. I advert, 
meanwhile, in passing, to the absence of a connective 
between the participles. Note, it is not said, " baptiz- 
ing and teaching," but, " baptizing, teaching." This 
asyndeton, or omission of the conjunction, is not 
natural if the mea7is of the discipling were intended to 
be pointed out in the participles. Let us insert a phrase 
unmistakably expressive of this instrumental idea, and 
we shall see : " Disciple all the nations by means of bap- 
tizing, teaching." You feel at once that if the means 
were intended thus to be prescribed, it would have been 
far more natural to say, " Disciple all the nations by 
means of baptizing and teaching." The and, in fact, 
seems to me so much a matter of course, a thing so 
inevitable, between clauses designed in such a case to 
express means or method, that the absence of it is 
alone of weight enough to decide my own judgment 
against that interpretation which makes the participles 
in these verses instrumental. Before bringing forward 
7 



74 THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 

an additional circumstance looking in the same direc- 
tion, and before giving what I think to be the true in- 
terpretation of the passage, I wish, for the sake of full 
presentation, to state the two other interpretations of 
it which the law of Greek participles used in connec- 
tion with finite forms of the verb would, considered 
exclusively by itself, recognize as admissible. One of 
these makes the verb " disciple " first give, in general, 
the action which the two participles following then 
divide into constituent parts. According to this in- 
terpretation, the sense is, " Disciple all the nations " — 
that is, to be more explicit, " Baptize them," " teach 
them." The absence of the conjunction weighs as 
strongly against this interpretation as it does against 
the interpretation first considered. If the participles 
had been meant to give the parts — two in number — 
making up the whole of the action prescribed in " Dis- 
ciple," there would almost certainly have been between 
them the connective and. It would have read some- 
what like this : " Disciple all the nations ; by which I 
mean, ' Baptize them and teach them.' " 

Once more. It is possible for Greek participles thus 
connected with a finite verb to express actions consecu- 
tive to the action of that. Interpreting in accordance 
with this possibility, we should have the following 
sense : " Begin by making all the nations disciples ; 
proceed by baptizing these ; and complete your work 
by instructing them to a perfect obedience." That 
such is indeed substantially the sense of the passage 
I have no doubt. This, however, is ascertained, not 
by the necessary relation of the participles to the verb, 



THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 75 

but by certain probable considerations to be found 
both within the passage itself and without. The cases 
in which the Greek participles are manifestly employed 
in connection with finite verbs for the purpose of ex- 
pressing actions consecutive to the actions expressed 
by the verbs — though such do, I believe, occur — I 
have not found to be very abundant. For my own 
part, I do not maintain this view of the present pas- 
sage, although this view is probably the favorite one 
with Baptists, as it is also the view most likely to occur 
to any chance intelligent reader of the English trans- 
lation. 

There is a fourth view — that one which I hold to be 
the true view — yet to be stated. This fourth view re- 
gards the participles as expressing actions not of ne- 
cessity rigidly consecutive to the action expressed by 
the imperative verb, but actions connected with it — 
actions not necessarily constituting together the whole 
sum of the action expressed by the principal verb, but 
actions virtually contained in that ; in short, this view 
regards the participles as being what we may call cir- 
cumstantial participles. The asyndeton, or absence of 
conjunctive word between the participles, strongly 
favors this view as the one applicable to the present 
case. The sense is, " Disciple all the nations, not 
omitting to baptize them, and give them, when dis- 
cipled and baptized, thorough subsequent indoctrina- 
tion to obedience." Such, I have little doubt, is the 
true meaning, and the true grammar as well, of this 
passage. The first participle, " baptizing," goes with 
the imperative " Disciple " to complement the meaning 



7 6 THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 

of that. The second participle, " teaching," goes with 
the whole complex expression, " Disciple, baptizing," 
to make that complete. The " Disciple " is not com- 
plete without the " baptizing," and the " Disciple, bap- 
tizing," is not complete without the " teaching." Thus 
the asyndeton is most naturally accounted for. 

And now for another grammatical consideration em- 
braced within the passage itself. " Disciple all the 
nations," says Christ; "baptizing them," he proceeds. 
Baptizing whom ? " Why, all the nations," the Eng- 
lish reader promptly replies ; " there is no antecedent 
for ' them ' except ' all the nations.' " This seems 
quite clear to the reader of the English Bible. But 
the student of the Greek Testament knows that, in 
absolute strictness of grammatical concord, the "them" 
cannot have " all the nations " for its antecedent. The 
difference of gender forbids. " Nations " is in Greek a 
neuter noun, while " them " is a masculine pronoun. 
Now, undoubtedly the grammar of the biblical Greek 
permits us to reason that the sense of the noun rather 
than its technical gender may dictate the gender of the 
pronoun representing it. But in the present instance 
it is worthy of note that the Greek verb " Disciple " is 
made from a masculine noun. This Greek verb " Dis- 
ciple," accordingly, with its masculine noun " disciple," 
implicit in its very form as well as its sense, may have 
furnished to the thought of the Saviour the conception 
which dictated the pronoun after " baptizing " and after 
" teaching." Christ was not thinking of " all the na- 
tions," but of "the disciples" made out of "all the 
nations," when he said " baptizing them." Those out 



THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 7*J 

of all the nations who had been made disciples in that 
strict sense of the word already described were, then, 
to be first baptized and afterward taught. The form 
of the Greek pronoun them helps to make it probable 
that what in the Saviour's mind supplied the pronoun 
was not the idea of all the nations spoken of as the 
object of the discipling, but rather the idea of the 
disciples thus to be made out from all the nations. 
Who, then, are to be baptized ? Why, those who have 
been discipled. If literally " all the nations," still all 
the nations conceived as having been rendered dis- 
ciples — disciples in the deep and strict sense of that 
word. 

Thus does this passage fall easily and naturally into 
perfect accord with the teaching of the rest of reve- 
lation on the subject of belief before baptism. 

It is not too much to say that there is nothing in 
Scripture that, rightly understood, has even the look 
of favoring Paedobaptism. 
7* 



CHAPTER X. 

OBEDIENCE AND COMMON SENSE. 

BAPTISTS believe strongly in obedience, but not less 
strongly they believe also in common sense : they 
could not be the scripturalists they are if they did not. 
" Common sense" is a broad mark branded everywhere 
on the face of the Bible and inseparably water-lined 
into its texture. Unless a man has some common 
sense and uses it, he cannot know the Bible aright. 
Other things being equal, the more common sense a 
man has, the better he will know his Bible. 

These commonplace remarks are suggested by a 
fresh attempt lately made to turn the Baptist position 
by showing that the spirit of obedience is as good to 
discharge Psedobaptists from blame for being sprinkled 
when Christ says, " Be baptized," as it is to discharge 
Baptists from blame for not insisting on a baptized 
baptizer in their act of submitting to baptism. " It is 
clearly implied " — so, in the spirit of the argnmentum 
ad hominem, our opponents sometimes pleasantly as- 
sure us — " it is clearly implied in the Bible to be 
Christ's will that the baptizer should himself have 
been baptized, and you Baptists insist, you know, that 
1 to the spirit of obedience the clearly-implied will of 
Christ is just as binding as his expressed will is.' How, 

7:8 



THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 79 

then, are not Baptists as far wrong to receive baptism 
from persons not in an unbroken succession of the 
properly baptized, beginning with the apostles, as Pae- 
dobaptists are in making infant sprinkling do for adult 
immersion ?" But, of course, the real meaning of this 
is that neither Baptists nor Paedobaptists are wrong 
at all in the matter. Both parties are quite right, pro- 
vided only they think they are quite right. It is suf- 
ficient, equally for them both, to do what they think is 
sufficient. Think you obey, and you do obey. Such 
is the easy gospel of obedience preached by these 
brethren. 

Now, the common sense of the matter seems to me 
to be this : Christ says, " Be baptized." He does not 
say, " Be baptized " by such or such a person, or by 
a person so or so qualified. In fact, there are clear 
indications that the person who, in baptizing, is com- 
paratively indifferent. Jesus himself baptized not, but 
his disciples. Paul did not baptize with his own hands, 
but by the hands of some anonymous baptizers. The 
person who, in being baptized, is of prime consequence. 
This person is to have repented and believed. Of 
course, there are decent limits within which indifference 
as to the baptizer must be confined. These limits 
common sense and the spirit of obedience appoint. 
Thus much is implied — nothing more — as to the will 
of Christ in this manner. 

Most certainly, all persons who baptize ought them- 
selves to be baptized persons. But this is true also of 
all other persons whatever as well. That we should 
insist, in all proper ways, on everybody's obedience at 



SO THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 

this point is unquestionable. That we should insist in 
the particular way of refusing to be baptized by a man 
without that qualification on his part is by no means 
so certain. It is to be left to the spirit of obedience 
and common sense to decide. 

There may be a distinction not without a difference 
between having the spirit to do what you think is com- 
manded and having the spirit to do what actually is 
commanded. If a man tells us, " Put oil on the fire," 
and we understand him, " Put water on the fire," and 
go about doing this, we cannot be said to have the 
spirit of putting on oil, when we are actually with in- 
telligent purpose putting on water. If, on the other 
hand, we rightly understand the direction, but seize 
the vessel of water, inadvertently mistaking it for the 
vessel of oil, then we may truthfully be said to have 
the spirit of putting on oil, even when, as matter of 
fact, we do put on water. 

Strictly speaking, there is no such thing as the spirit 
to obey a particular command unless that command is 
rightly understood. There may, indeed, be a general 
wish to do what a master requires ; but, self-evidently, 
there can be no disposition to do a particular thing 
commanded when that particular thing is either not 
known or not understood. In this sense, unless the 
command, " Be baptized," is understood as the Lord 
meant it, there is no spirit of obedience exercised 
toward that exact command. All which is perhaps 
barren, but it is certainly axiomatic. 

Here, however, is something equally axiomatic, and 
not barren. If the command is, " Do an act," and you 



THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 8 1 

not only have never done it, but have never had the 
least intention of doing it, then that command you have 
never met either with obedience or with even the spirit 
of obedience. This is the situation in which the great 
mass of all Paedobaptists stand with reference to the 
command, " Be baptized." An act is commanded which 
they have never performed, and which they have not 
now, and which they never had, the smallest purpose 
to perform. It is not uncharitable, therefore — it is simply 
true — to say that toward this commandment of an act 
from them themselves they have never exercised the 
spirit of obedience. They have not done what is " suf- 
ficient " — they have not even done what they think is 
" sufficient " — for they have never done anything what- 
ever toward the obeying of this commandment. They 
have simply said, " I am baptized ;" for they cannot say 
that they ever did anything whatever in the premises. 
A particular act is commanded to them, and they say, 
" Some one else once did something else." And this 
is claimed to be not only the spirit of obedience, but 
obedience itself! 

A Psedobaptist editor lately quoted from a Baptist 
editor as follows : 

" If a person giving evidence of piety who has been 
solemnly immersed, on a profession of his faith, by an 
administrator believed by the candidate to be authorized 
to perform the rite, and who was satisfied with his bap- 
tism, applied for membership, we have recommended 
his reception by the church. . . . He had obeyed 
Christ." 

The Paedobaptist editor then exclaimed : 

F 



82 THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 

" But behold a snag ! If the baptism is sufficient 
baptism because it is believed by the subject of it to 
be sufficient, then why is not sprinkling sufficient bap- 
tism when it is believed by the subject of it to be suf- 
ficient? . . . Still further, is not infant baptism suf- 
ficient when it is believed by the subject of it to be suf- 
fiient ? . . . There can be no doubt of it." 

Now, is it possible that this was unconscious leger- 
demain ? Probably ; for that Paedobaptist editor meant 
to be candid and honorable, at the same time that he 
would by no means fail to be bright and ingenious. 
But observe. The Baptist editor describes a baptism 
circumstantially; it is a profession of faith, it is solemnly 
administered, it is immersion, it is done by a person be- 
lieved to be qualified ; and the point is incidentally add- 
ed that the subject is satisfied with his baptism. Here- 
upon the critic, dropping everything that is essential, 
and holding only the one thing that is incidental, pro- 
ceeds to infer that, on the same principle, anything or 
nothing is " sufficient " if the subject is "satisfied." 
For in the case of one sprinkled in infancy the sub- 
ject has done nothing — absolutely nothing — but at an 
indefinite later period to be " satisfied " with having 
done nothing. And this is " obedience " and the 
" answer of a good conscience " ! 

Truly, a little less metaphysics and a little more 
common sense would improve the quality of our 
obedience. 

If Christ had said, " Be baptized by one duly bap- 
tized," then, certainly, he would have laid a heavy 
burden on his babes, to find out so difficult a point 



THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 83 

beyond the possibility of an error ; but the duty of 
obedience would still be plain. As it is, he has simply 
bidden, " Be baptized." The way of obedience is for 
those bidden to rise up and obey, not to sit still and 
be "satisfied." 



CHAPTER XI. 

THE ARGUMENT FROM COMMON SENSE. 

THE questions which divide Baptists and Paedo- 
baptists are very simple questions : What is 
baptism ? Who should be baptized ? Two simpler 
questions it would be hard to devise. The plain com- 
mon sense of any chance man you should meet might 
safely be trusted to answer them. Prepossessions aside, 
and the Bible, the English Bible, the only resort, there 
could scarcely be different answers. Different answers, 
however, there are, for resort is made elsewhere than to 
the Bible, and prepossessions are not put aside. Let us 
return once more to the Bible alone, and let us, if we 
can, put aside our prepossessions. To endeavor to rid 
the candid and intelligent Paedobaptist mind of cer- 
tain natural but misleading misconceptions concerning 
the Baptist position, and then to exhibit that position 
according to fact and in the clearest possible light, 
according to what I may call the method of common 
sense, will be the object of the present chapter. 

I seek to have my brother take my point of view ; it 
will be but fair to begin by showing my brother that I 
can take his point of view. This, then, I suppose to be 
the customary Paedobaptist way of considering the ques- 
tions at issue. It is as if our Paedobaptist brethren said 

84 



THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 85 

to us, " Granted now, good friends, that your peculiar 
views are right : still, why, pray, make such manifold 
ado about them ? Wherein can you find their extra- 
ordinary value and significance ? There you are, occu- 
pying the position of separatists. Separatists for what ? 
Why — who would believe it? — for a mere question, 
forsooth, of more water or less, how applied and 
when, in the matter of baptism. Except in those 
trifles you are one with the great Christian world. 
Is it, can it be, worth while, on points such as these, 
which concern only a ritual observance at most, to 
rend the body of Christ and to hold yourselves aloof 
from your brethren in an attitude of protest and re- 
buke ? Are there not weightier matters of Christ's 
law that should attract and absorb your attention ? 
It really does seem to us all a kind of pettiness and 
narrowness in you, this literalizing and ritualizing 
spirit on your part, ill becoming a body of Christians 
in whom we are delighted to recognize, in other re- 
gards, so many claims on our respect and affection." 

If I have thus succeeded at all in taking the point 
of view from which our Paedobaptist brethren are ac- 
customed to regard our position, I may now, perhaps, 
ask them to take the point of view from which we are 
accustomed to regard our position ourselves. 

And at the outset, in the way of preface, it needs to 
be said that their great organizing principle — of obedi- 
ence to Christ — would make Baptists stand for any 
points of Christ's commandment, even if those points 
were indeed such and so small and so apparently in- 
significant as their Paedobaptist brethren not unnatu- 



86 THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 

rally conceive the points insisted upon by Baptists re- 
specting baptism to be. But those points of Christ's 
commandment which make us Baptists are not such, 
and they are not so small and they are not so insig- 
nificant. 

They are not such ; for it is not true that Baptists 
stickle for quantity of water in baptism. Quantity of 
water, more or less, is to us as much a matter of in- 
difference as it is to our Paedobaptist brethren. We 
ask, as they do, simply for so much as may suffice to 
perform the act. We are amply satisfied with more 
or with less, as occasion serves, provided only we have 
enough to accomplish the ordinance, " Be baptized." 
The sufficient supply may be found in an ocean or it 
may be found in a baptistery. The one quantity con- 
tents us just as well as the other. 

In the next place, it is not at all with Baptists a ques- 
tion of mode. The mode of the act is, like the quan- 
tity of water used in performing the act, to us a point 
of total unconcern. We resemble our • Paedobaptist 
brethren in accounting one mode of baptism equally 
valid with another. Like them, we seek simply to 
perform the act in whatever mode seems to us best to 
become the decorum of the solemn occasion. We may 
baptize the obedient subject with his face downward, to 
welcome the wave that submerges him ; or with his 
face upward, to receive the smile of the ascended Lord 
whom he obeys. We may baptize him from an erect 
or from a kneeling posture. We may baptize him in 
a single or in a threefold act. Such choices in mode 
are by no means disapproved by Baptists. We seek 



THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 8? 

only to obey the command, " Be baptized," in what- 
ever quantity of water may answer that purpose, ac- 
cording to whatever mode of administration judgment 
or custom may recommend. In how much water, ac- 
cording to what mode, — these matters are of no more 
moment to us than to others. 

Again, as to the time when, in baptism, there too we are 
very much of the same mind with our brethren of other 
evangelical churches. These all choose, I believe, the 
earliest convenient moment after the subject is regarded 
as fit to receive baptism, or, as it is better expressed, to 
be baptized. Paedobaptists baptize (let us indulge the 
term) their children as soon as deemed suitable after 
their children's birth ; we observe the same rule. The 
difference between them and us is that they, in fixing 
the time of their baptism, reckon from the moment of 
first, or natural, birth ; we, in fixing the time of our 
baptism, reckon from the moment of second, or spir- 
itual, birth. 

In one word, and as plainly as possible, the really 
great question between Baptists and Paedobaptists is 
something quite apart and distinct from the points thus 
far considered. That question is, Who shall be bap- 
tized ? not, In how much water ? nor, According to 
what mode ? nor yet, At what time ? A subordinate 
question of very considerable importance would still 
remain after this chief question was answered. Hav- 
ing decided who are to be baptized, we should next 
have to decide what baptism is. 

For a moment, however, let baptism be an unknown 
term. From the form of the word employed, we sim- 



88 THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 

ply know that baptism is an action ; what action it is 
remains, we will suppose, wholly indeterminate. 

Our first question, then, is, Who shall be baptized ? 
But why should any be baptized ? Evidently, because 
a commandment of Christ exists to that effect; and, 
evidently, for no other reason in the world. In what 
form of language is the commandment expressed ? In 
various forms of language, of one agreeing import, but 
most directly, most simply, most briefly, and most ex- 
plicitly in a single Greek word translated by two words 
in English — namely, " Be baptized." Here, then, is 
an imperative verb in the second person, of uncertain 
significance, let us say, as to the action prescribed by 
it, but of perfectly certain significance as to the person 
or persons who are to perform the action. It is the 
persons addressed : from the nature of the case, from 
the universal laws of human language, it can be no 
other than they. Whatever " being baptized " may 
mean, the commandment, " Be baptized," can be obey- 
ed only by the person to be baptized. If any one else 
undertakes to obey it, the result simply is that one has 
somebody baptized — an action which might be obedi- 
ence if the command were, " Have such or such a 
person baptized," but which, the commandment being 
" Be baptized," is no obedience at all. The command- 
ment, " Be baptized," can therefore be obeyed only by 
one capable of understanding, first, that something is 
commanded ; secondly, that that something is command- 
ed him ; and thirdly, what that something commanded is. 
The commandment, " Be baptized," will be obeyed only 
by one who, besides being capable of so understanding, 



THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 89 

is likewise disposed to obey the commandment. The 
person to be baptized (whatever baptism is) must be 
both intelligent and obedient. Obedience to the com- 
mandment is, on any other conditions, simply a thing 
impossible and inconceivable. 

We arrive at this conclusion — namely, the conclusion 
that only the person spoken to in the words " Be bap- 
tized " can possibly do what therein is directed to be 
done, and that that person can obey in doing it only 
as he knows what is directed and has the purpose to 
comply, — this conclusion, I say, we arrive at, without 
resort to the context in which the commandment stands, 
solely from the necessary, the inevitable force, of the 
one Greek word and the two English words in which 
the commandment is couched. There is no evading 
of the conclusion by any art of interpretation whatever. 
The conclusion resides immovably and impregnably 
in the very form itself, irrespective of the meaning of 
the commandment. It is needless to say, though it 
may, of course, truly be said, that the context confirms 
the conclusion in almost every practicable way. Per- 
sons may unquestionably be baptized — that is, dipped, 
sprinkled, " poured " (the barbarism seems necessary) 
— in the bare literal sense of the word employed, either 
by their own motion or by the motion of others — that 
is, either voluntarily or involuntarily : this is quite pos- 
sible ; but no such baptism is baptism in the sense of 
the words constituting the commandment, " Be bap- 
tized," unless the subject consciously consents to it, and 
does so for the purpose in his heart of fulfilling the will 
of Christ. Conscious obedience alone converts the else 

8* 



90 THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 

bald physical fact into that which we have learned to 
mean and to understand when we say or hear the word 
" baptism." A man might as well try to stare the sun 
out of countenance as to deny this, or to gainsay it, or 
to ignore it, with the New Testament before his eyes 
and with his senses in his head. 

Last, briefly, What is baptism ? As has already been 
said, no less complicated question ever was asked, no 
question less susceptible of being variously answered. 
Let us remember that we are seeking now for the 
nature of the outward act implied in baptism. 
The element of obedience in it may be left out of ac- 
count. The nature of the outward act will be the 
same with or without obedience. What, then, is the 
physical action denoted by the Greek word " baptism " 
(for " baptism " is simply a Greek word made English) ? 
Lexicographers, with one accord, reply, " Immersion." 
Some few of them, perhaps, but not the most enlight- 
ened, admit other meanings. 

Psedobaptists treat baptism as if in the New Testa- 
ment it meant " application of water to the person." 
If this were the meaning, immersion would still be 
valid indeed as baptism, but equally valid would be 
sprinkling or pouring. Manifestly, water may be ap- 
plied in any one of these three ways. But what is the 
fact about the meaning of the Greek word " baptism " ? 

There is a view of plain common sense which it 
needs no Greek scholarship to appreciate. Every lan- 
guage naturally has a word to mean " dip," a word to 
mean " sprinkle," and a word to mean " pour," for the 
obvious reason that all these actions are common every- 



THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 9 1 

where and need to be spoken of. Every language natural- 
ly, too, has a word to mean " moisten," " dampen," " wet" 
This latter word, in any language, would be vague 
enough to include within its scope every form of ap- 
plying water that should result in wetting the object 
to which the water was applied. Now, if Christ meant, 
" Have water applied to your person," when he said, 
through Peter, " Be baptized," why did he not use this 
more vague, less determinate word ? Or if he some- 
times used the specific word which means " Be dip- 
ped " in a loose way for the general direction, " Have 
yourself wetted," how does it happen that he never in 
any instance used the specific word which would mean 
" Be sprinkled," in a similarly loose way for the same 
general direction ? Is it probable that Christ, always 
meaning loosely " Be wetted," would always say, strict- 
ly, " Be dipped " ? The emblematic import attributed 
in the New Testament to baptism of course still further 
fixes the real meaning of a word that was, however, in 
no need of having its meaning further fixed. 

Let Baptists, then, not be misunderstood to be mere 
sticklers for a little more water in baptism or a partic- 
ular mode of baptizing. What Baptists stand for is 
obedience to Christ in everything, and, with the rest, 
for obedience to Christ in being baptized. 

I reserve to another chapter the unfolding of what 
I believe to be the vast, the almost incalculable, prac- 
tical importance of the Baptist principle in its applica- 
tion to baptism as the importance of that principle 
thus applied is illustrated in nineteen centuries of 
church history. 



CHAPTER XII. 

A MODERN PSEUDO-APOSTOLIC EPISTLE. 

UNDER the heading, " Paul to the Modern Gala- 
tians," a recent periodical article undertakes to 
dispose at a stroke of those whom it calls " ritualists 
in all denominations." " Somewhat thus " — so this 
article imagines — " would St. Paul to-day address 
himself to these who still bend themselves about 
Mount Sinai." And it then goes on to frame a lively 
and ingenious parody of "St. Paul's" ("Paul's," in- 
stead of " St. Paul's," better suits the non-ritualizing 
taste) Epistle to the Galatians, adjusting it to the 
supposed current phases of the Galatian tendency 
apparent among us of this country and age. 

The parody of Paul's letter thus furnished, no doubt 
was furnished in perfect good faith on the part of the 
author. We readily assume that the author really 
conceived himself to have faithfully represented therein 
the true original Pauline ideas on the subject discussed, 
and we accordingly treat the implied argument with 
seriousness and candor in reply. 

We may properly confine ourselves to two points 
only in the manifold indictment brought against vari- 
ous Christian bodies for ritualism on their part. Those 
two points concern the two Christian ordinances, bap- 

92 



THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 93 

tism and the Lord's Supper. The journalistic pseudo- 
Paul uses the following language : 

" Why are ye again entangled in the yoke of bond- 
age ? Why are ye making the loving memorials of 
Christ's death, or the symbol of the cleansing of your 
sins, a test and a stumbling-block ? It is not the 
slavery of water or wine or bread which Christ en- 
joins ; but he offers the love and freedom of sons. 
I would they were not only dipped, but drowned, 
that trouble you." 

In prefacing the pseudo-Pauline epistle the writer 
says : 

Paul " had to repeat it in every form that Chris- 
tianity was all spirit ; that Christ had come to redeem 
us from slavery to the ordinances, which neither we 
nor our fathers could bear ; and that not one — abso- 
lutely not one — of the merely outward and physical 
adjuncts of religion was now binding — not circum- 
cision, not sacrifice, not holy days. Everything was 
done away, and all that was required was the spirit 
of love and obedience." 

Now, as I have been accustomed to read Paul, he 
never once said, in any form, and, of course, there- 
fore, he could not " repeat in every form," that " Chris- 
tianity was all spirit." Paul was a great deal too well 
balanced in his mental constitution, a great deal too 
earnestly practical in his religious spirit, ever to say 
such a foolish and misleading thing as that. He in- 
sisted on the spirit, but he insisted, too, and not less, 
on the manifestation of the spirit. This is the expla- 
nation of Paul's innumerable preceptive exhortations 



94 THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 

occurring in his letters applicable to every-day life. 
Paul was no legalist, but he was also no sentiment- 
alist. The practical interest is always and everywhere 
supreme in his writings. His doctrine was all for the 
sake of life. Life is spirit, to be sure ; but life is con- 
duct as well, according to Paul, and according to the 
unanimous and emphatic consent of Scripture. A 
falser and more mischievous representation of Paul's 
teaching than to say of it that it made "Christianity 
all spirit" could hardly be contrived, unless it were to 
say of it that it made Christianity all outward behavior. 
Paul's teaching did neither the one nor the other of 
these things. It married spirit and letter in indivisi- 
ble unity. 

By happy unconscious self-despatch the writer rec- 
ognizes the truth of these statements when he says, 
" All that was required was the spirit of love and 
obedience!' Yes, that indeed is all : " the spirit of 
love" first, and then " obedience." This is Paul, and 
this is Christ, and this, in short, is Scripture. But if 
" obedience " means anything additional to " love," 
then Christianity is not " all spirit." Obedience is at 
least something to Christianity. Or does our writer 
mean the " spirit of love and [of] obedience " ? Well, 
that, indeed, turns all into " spirit," and saves for the 
writer his consistency, but at the expense of his incon- 
sistent fidelity to truth. For, as the spirit of love loves, 
so the spirit of obedience obeys. It is pure sentiment- 
alism — or, worse, it is sentimentalism not pure, but 
mixed with Antinomianism — that rests satisfied with 
the spirit of love without loving, or with the spirit of 



THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 95 

obedience without obeying. It is a tendency abhor- 
rent from Paul. We seem to hear Paul utter at en- 
counter of it his fervent, deprecatory " God forbid 1" 

It is true enough, as the pseudo-Paul says, that " it 
is not the slavery of water or wine or bread which 
Christ enjoins." But how is it that we escape the 
" slavery " ? Is it by disregarding the command, 
" Baptize," or the commands, " Drink " and " Eat " ? 
Is it not rather by regarding these commands — re- 
garding them in the loyal spirit of love ? Disregard- 
ing them is not freedom, it is only disobedience; and 
disobedience, sooner or later, is always bondage. So 
Adam found, to his cost, and to ours. The way to 
freedom is the way of obedience. If Christ had said, 
" Be Jews and observe Moses' ceremonial require- 
ments," then the way to freedom would be through 
strict obedience to this command, and consequent ob- 
servance of the Mosaic ritual. But Christ taught Paul, 
" Disuse the Mosaic ritual ; practise it no longer." 
Obedience still is our freedom, and we obey by ceas- 
ing to ritualize according to Moses. We repeat, if 
Christ had said, " Go on ritualizing according to 
Moses," then our duty, and our liberty no less, would 
lie in ritualizing according to Moses. Christ did not 
say this, but the contrary. He did, however, say, 
"■ Baptize," " Be baptized," " Eat," and " Drink." A 
new ritualism, if you please to call it such. It is 
binding, however, for the very same reason that the 
old ritualism ceased to the Jews to be binding — 
namely, the authority of Christ. 

Christ was the end of the law — the old law ; good 



9^ THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 

reason, therefore, for the old law's ceasing to be in 
force after the " It is finished " of Calvary. Christ was 
the beginning and the source of this new law ; good 
reason, therefore, for Christ's saying, " Do this " (" till 
he come " is Paul's own clause of perpetual obligation), 
" disciple, baptize, teach ;" " Lo, I am with you alway, 
even unto the end of the world." 

I confess it has always seemed to me so absurd as to 
be absolutely incomprehensible that intelligent Chris- 
tian men should continue to observe a ritual and 
pretend to slight the ritual. If baptism is nothing, 
why, pray, practise baptism ? If the Lord's Supper is 
nothing, why, in the name of reason, continue to ob- 
serve the Lord's Supper ? The essence of a ritual act, 
its spirit, lies in its being the act prescribed. If the 
act is of no consequence, then the rite itself — for the 
rite consists in the act — is of no consequence. Why 
go on to perform a rite which you ceaselessly proclaim 
to be nothing? One can understand ritualism like that 
of Rome ; one can understand anti-ritualism like that 
of the Quaker; one can understand obedience like that 
which, either well informed or misinformed, most evan- 
gelical Christians attempt to practise ; but that nonde- 
script something which is neither ritualism nor anti- 
ritualism ; nor yet obedience, as it does an act, but 
disdains to do the act ; which says by its words that 
the rite is of no account, while saying by its practice 
that a rite is indispensably important, — this unnamable 
somewhat, one is compelled, indeed, to recognize as un- 
doubtedly existing, for it stares one in the face from 
many a printed page of Christian polemics ; but this — 



THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 97 

I make my confession with candor — this I cannot un- 
derstand. It agrees well, however, with the incon- 
siderateness that could permit its subject to talk about 
" ordinances which neither we nor our fathers could 
bear;" as if, forsooth, either "we" or " our fathers " 
had ever had anything the least to do with " bearing " 
the ordinances of the Mosaic economy ! It agrees 
well, too, with that released spirit of superiority to 
wellnigh universal Christian opinion which could per- 
mit its subject to talk about Paul's " repeating " that 
"not one — absolutely not one — of the merely outward 
and physical adjuncts of religion was now binding," in 
face of the fact that it is Paul himself who in more 
than one of his Epistles draws out, at the most im- 
pressive length and in the most suggestive detail, the 
symbolic meanings enfolded in baptism, thus by im- 
plication most emphatically attesting the continuing 
obligation of the ordinance, — that it is Paul himself 
who in a memorable passage of his letter to the Cor- 
inthians gives particular directions about the obser- 
vance of the Lord's Supper. 

" Everything was done away," indeed ! A sweeping 
expression. " Was done away !" When ? how ? When 
Christ ordained baptism and ordained the Supper, was 
it then that the Supper and that baptism were " done 
away " ? Were these things done away in and by virtue 
of their being enjoined? If not at this time, if not in 
this manner, then how, pray, and when ? The Second 
Dispensation " did away " the First Dispensation in its 
ritual part by in that part fulfilling it : this is intelligible ; 
but the Second Dispensation— the Dispensation to which 
9 G 



9 8 THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 

alone baptism and the Lord's Supper belong, — has a 
third dispensation succeeded to this, whereby this also 
"now" has in its turn been "done away"? Let the 
prophet of the third dispensation — if third dispensation 
there be and it have a prophet among us — speak out 
more plainly. If " everything " now, at least, has in- 
deed been " done away," it concerns us all to know 
it. 

The third dispensation, if the pseudo-Paul indicates 
truly its character, must be something very like, how- 
ever unrecognizedly like, what Christians have learned 
to know, but not to admire, as " free religion." 



CHAPTER XIII. 

BAPTISM IN SYMBOLS. 

THERE are several passages of Scripture in which 
baptism is presented to us under certain resem- 
blances, figures, or symbols. These divinely-approved 
similitudes to represent baptism ought, carefully studied, 
to suggest useful collateral hints as to what baptism 
properly is, perhaps also as to who may properly re- 
ceive baptism. If we know what a thing in question 
is like, we are at least so much nearer knowing what 
that thing in question itself is. Let us, accordingly, in 
the present chapter, give ourselves to a thoughtful ex- 
amination of the symbols under which the Spirit of 
God has chosen to set forth baptism in his holy- 
word. 

One conspicuous scriptural passage in which bap- 
tism is expressly, and therefore unmistakably, referred 
to in the way of symbol or emblem occurs in the tenth 
chapter of the first letter to the Corinthians. The fol- 
lowing are the words : " Moreover, brethren, I would 
not that ye should be ignorant how that all our fathers 
were under the cloud and all passed through the sea; 
and were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in 
the sea." 

I feel that a word needs to be premised of justifi- 

99 



100 THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 

cation for the seriousness with which I shall presently 
treat the strangely perverse interpretation that the 
advocates of sprinkling for baptism — the less en- 
lightened, that is to say, among them — seek to put 
upon this passage of Scripture. I cite in illustration 
a comment from Arthur's Tongue of Fire (p. 30), curious 
for perfectly reckless assertion on the part of the au- 
thor: " The only other case in which the mode of 
contact between the baptizing element and the bap- 
tized persons is indicated is this : ' And were all bap- 
tized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea.' They 
were not dipped in the cloud, but the cloud descended 
upon them ; they were not plunged into the sea, but 
the sea sprinkled them as they passed." It is such 
popular comment as this, unaffected by scholarship 
either possessed or borrowed by the commentator, 
that still continues to blind the eyes of thousands 
upon thousands of conscientious non-Baptist Chris- 
tians all over the world. Meantime, of course, really 
competent scholars of all denominations hold substan- 
tially the same doctrine concerning the passage now 
under consideration as that which is here about to be 
set forth. 

In the present passage a special emphasis rests on 
the word all. Paul is enforcing the idea that no one 
should be over-confident of final salvation on the ground 
of any forms or rites observed or any privileges en- 
joyed. All the fathers, he says, shared the high ex- 
periences enumerated, but not all were brought safely 
through their wandering in the wilderness. For the 
practical purpose of rendering the historic example 



THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 10 1 

more impressive, Paul uses language in a way to 
make the case of the ancient Israelites seem as close- 
ly parallel as possible with that of Christians. In 
accordance with this plan of discourse, having men- 
tioned the abiding of the fathers under the cloud and 
their passing through the sea, he immediately seizes 
upon the thought of treating these experiences of 
theirs as constituting a kind of baptism. We exam- 
ine now, let us keep in mind, this turn of Paul's rhet- 
oric for the sake of finding out what is incidentally 
taught in it of a certain subordinate matter. Our 
question is simply this : What hint as to the true na- 
ture and form of baptism does Paul's implied com- 
parison contain ? The right way of reaching an an- 
swer will of course be by attentively considering what 
the comparison implied is. 

I say " the comparison," but perhaps I should say 
"the comparisons" rather; for I am inclined to think 
that we have here, not one single compound compari- 
son, in which "cloud" and "sea" are both together 
concerned, but two distinct comparisons instead ; first, 
of baptism to the relation of the Israelites with the 
cloud, and seco?zdly, of baptism to the relation of the 
Israelites with the sea — that is, I believe the quick 
and teeming mind of Paul saw in two different great 
experiences of the Israelites two different available 
symbols for baptism, and used them both. I draw 
this conclusion partly from a study of the language of 
the passage before us, and partly from a study of the 
Old-Testament history. Paul does not say, " All our 
fathers were under the cloud while they passed through 

9 * 



102 THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 

the sea," or, "All our fathers passed through the sea 
under the cloud ;" he says, " All our fathers were 
under the cloud, and they all passed through the 
sea." The repetition of the word "all" would hardly 
have occurred if one and the same experience on the 
part of the Israelites had been intended. They all 
Paul would say, had this experience, and they all had 
that experience. The experiences were two : first, 
that of being under the cloud ; secondly, that of pass- 
ing through the sea. With this understanding of the 
first verse agrees the phraseology of the second. For 
it is not said, " And were all baptized unto Moses in 
the cloud and sea," as if sea and cloud united to give 
them one baptism ; it is said, " And were all baptized 
unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea," the preposi- 
tion in being repeated, as if to indicate two separate 
experiences on their part, each experience capable of 
being likened to baptism. 

We scrutinize the history of the passing of the Red 
Sea, and we find our view confirmed. It is distinctly 
stated in Exodus that on the eve of the Israelites 
commencing their dread adventure of fording the 
Red Sea, the cloud " went from before their face, and 
stood behind them." There is not the smallest hint 
to show that at this time the cloud was over the Is- 
raelites. The cloud had been before them ; it now re- 
moved and took its station behind them. Whether 
in making this change it passed over the host or 
fetched a circuit to one side of them, nothing is said 
that encourages us to form a conjecture. But, at all 
events, the cloud during the whole of the night in 



THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. IO3 

which the passage was effected stood in the rear of 
the Israelites, bright in its aspect toward them, while 
dark in its aspect toward the Egyptians. There is, 
therefore, no natural way in which the cloud could 
meanwhile have supplied a means of baptism to the 
Israelites. Elsewhere in the Old-Testament history 
it is stated that the cloud stood over the Israelites and 
was upon them; the time when is not given. When, 
however, fixed in that local relation to the host, the 
cloud might in at least one conceivable way have 
"baptized" them. Standing behind them, it could 
not have done so in any way that seems natural. 

We conclude, therefore, with much confidence, that 
Paul introduces in the verses here being considered 
not one symbol of baptism made up of two parts, 
but two different symbols instead. There was a sym- 
bolic baptism in the cloud, and there was besides a 
symbolic baptism in the sea. Now the point is, How 
were these baptisms in symbol effected? Or rather, 
Exactly what were the occurrences or experiences 
that Paul here uses rhetorically as analogues of bap- 
tism ? Take first the symbol in which the cloud is 
concerned. 

Two mutually contradictory answers have been 
proposed. One is that the cloud sprinkled water 
upon the Israelites. To this answer there are various 
objections. First, there is no evidence that the cloud 
was an aqueous cloud. It was dark by day and it was 
light at night, having in this latter case the appearance 
of fire. It is purely and wholly gratuitous to assume 
that the cloud was vapor of water. More, it is against 



104 THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 

probability. Secondly, let it have been granted that 
the cloud was compact of water, still it is sheer 
assumption — assumption again contrary to likelihood 
— that the cloud shed down showers upon the Israel- 
ites. Are we to suppose that the cloud kept the 
Israelites constantly sprinkled ? That it did so upon 
occasion ? When ? Why ? Thirdly, the preposition 
is against this view. " In the cloud" is the phrase. 
Insert " sprinkled" for "baptized," and see how the 
clause looks : " Were sprinkled in the cloud." Does 
this seem natural ? Even if the cloud had indeed 
shed water upon the Israelites from its position over 
them, still surely that fact would not have been stated 
in the phrase, " were sprinkled in the cloud." Fourthly, 
the word "baptized" is against this view. " Baptized" 
means covered with or in or under ; as, for example, 
with or in or under water. That, however, we must 
not now say. That is here a begging of the question. 
We do not yet know what "baptized" means; we are 
seeking to know. And we must not use the lexicon 
for the purpose ; we must keep to the symbol here 
employed to represent baptism. 

The three objections above named put sprinkling 
out of the question. It is not certain that the cloud 
sprinkled water; it is not likely that the cloud 
sprinkled water. It is not certain that the cloud con- 
tained water ; it is not likely that the cloud contained 
water. But if, in spite of no evidence for it and in 
spite of likelihood against it, the cloud did yet both 
contain water and sprinkle water, still that fact would 
not naturally be alluded to in the expression, " were 



THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 105 

baptized in the cloud." Nay, if sprinkling is baptism, 
and if the sprinkling supposed took place, then that 
sprinkling would not have been used as Paul here 
uses what did take place — namely, in the way of a 
symbol for baptism. A symbol is founded in, not 
identity, but resemblance. If a sprinkling with wa- 
ter is baptism, then a sprinkling with water is not 
a symbol of baptism. The whole purport of the 
passage is nullified if you try to make out a sprink- 
ling with water to resemble a sprinkling with water. 
The Lord's Supper in the context is symbolized by 
the manna for the bread and by the miraculous water 
for wine. Here is resemblance, but not identity. Just 
so, baptism is symbolized by something that is like 
baptism, but that is not baptism. By what, then ? 
Why, nothing more simple. By the hovering of the 
cloud over the Israelites, as the water for a moment 
covers the subject in baptism. But some one says, 
" Stay : the cloud, you hold, was not vapor of water. 
No water, and yet baptism ?" Certainly ; baptism in 
symbol, not baptism in fact. " The cloud simply 
over the Israelites, they not enveloped in it ? No 
immersion, and yet baptism ?" Certainly ; the symbol 
may not be perfect : symbols seldom are. Still, we do 
not know but the cloud, as the rabbis think it did, 
may have wrapped the Israelites quite around in its 
folds. This, however, it is not at all necessary to 
suppose. The cloud covering the Israelites, accord- 
ing to the expression of the psalm, " He spread a 
cloud for a covering," — this representation is quite 
sufficient for the purpose of the symbol. The feature 



106 THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 

of burial in baptism — one of the most important 
features of the rite as itself a symbol — is strikingly 
set forth. This amply suffices the purposes. 

The symbol for baptism contained in the relation of 
the Israelites to the cloud appears thus to exclude 
sprinkling as the rite intended to be alluded to. Im- 
mersion, on the contrary, for baptism entirely satisfies 
the conditions of the case. So much for baptism, then, 
as it is presented in the symbol of the cloud. A very 
brief notice will enable us to dismiss the symbol con- 
tained in the passing of the Red Sea. 

In order to make this symbol seem consistent with 
a mistaken view of what baptism is, it has been as- 
sumed by some (Arthur in his Tongue of Fire affords 
an example) that the divided sea scattered spray on 
the Israelites as they passed through between the walls 
of water on either side. This assumption is purely 
gratuitous ; there is not the slightest evidence in its 
favor ; there is every probability against it. Is it to be 
supposed that God would so imperfectly work his 
attempted miracle ? Is it like the Wonderful in work- 
ing that he should indeed separate the body of the sea 
to make dry land in its bed, and yet wet the Israelites 
as they passed with spray from the waves ? Of course, 
if it were related that such was the case, there would 
be nothing for us but to believe it, and to believe it 
to have been wise and good ; but, it not being related, 
will anybody pretend that it is probable ? 

On the other hand, how like an immersion it was — 
like, observe, without being the same — for the Israelites 
to venture themselves down to the bottom of the sea 



THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 107 

and enclose themselves within those dread walls of 
water heaped up on either side ! Conceive the event 
as a spectacle. The observer beholds the great pro- 
cession of the Israelites descending between those beet- 
ling watery walls into a lane stretched out long and 
narrow across the whole breadth of the sea at the point 
where the passage was made. The host are lost as it 
were in " the midst of the sea." After an interval they 
issue from their entombment in a resurrection upon the 
farther shore. How vividly like the majestic enact- 
ment on a colossal scale of a baptism, with its submer- 
sion, its instant of disappearance from view, its subse- 
quent emersion, on the part of the subject! How 
worthily impressive an image of the beautiful ordinance 
by which the obedient disciple signifies his death to 
sin and his resurrection to righteousness is thus seen 
to be that great critical act of the Israelites, in which 
they gave themselves irrevocably up to the leadership 
of Moses, passing from the bondage of Egypt through 
a tomb in the sea to emerge beyond this entombment 
into their new life of national freedom and power ! Is 
it less than irreverence — unconscious irreverence, it 
may be, toward the word of God — to treat this pas- 
sage as the upholders of sprinkling for baptism are 
forced to do ? Think of Paul's bringing forward an 
inexpressibly august and awful event of Jewish history, 
the crossing of the Red Sea, to make, pray, what use 
of it ? Why, forsooth, to separate from it an incident 
— namely, the sprinkling of the Israelites with spray ; 
an incident that, if it ever occurred at all — which is in 
the highest degree improbable — was certainly deemed 



108 THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 

by the sacred historical writers too trivial to deserve 
even a mention at their hands, — to separate, I say, an 
incident so insignificant from so tremendously signif- 
icant an event, making it the type of a Christian ordi- 
nance which the whole scope of the context shows 
Paul meant to magnify to the utmost possible impres- 
siveness ! Is this not an anti-climax — nay, a plunge 
into bathos — impossible to the rhetoric of Paul ? 

It ought perhaps to be noted that the " were bap- 
tized " of our common English version should, accord- 
ing to the best authorities, read " baptized themselves " 
or " caused themselves to be baptized," the sense thus 
being that the baptism was an act performed by the 
Israelites of their own accord. The bearing of this 
on the question, What persons may justly receive bap- 
tism ? is too obvious to need pointing out. 

Before the final dismissal of the present passage from 
consideration it may be well to remark that the finding 
in it of two symbols for baptism instead of one is not 
in the least material to the conclusion drawn as to its 
teaching on the form of the rite. If you please still to 
regard the symbolic baptism as a single one, jointly 
made up from the cloud and the sea, the result is the 
same. The baptism in that case consists in the enclos- 
ing of the Israelites in the sea while they are canopied 
over with the cloud. In any case, the nature of the 
symbol employed requires that the thing symbolized — 
namely, baptism — should be immersion. 

The other chief passage of Scripture in which bap- 
tism is presented in symbol occurs in the third chapter 
of the First Epistle of Peter. This passage is confess- 



THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. IO9 

edly difficult and obscure. The teaching of it on the 
present subject may, however, be made sufficiently ex- 
plicit. The passage reads as follows in our English 
Bible : " The like figure whereunto, even baptism, doth 
also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of 
the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward 
God), by the resurrection of Jesus Christ." The best 
critical scholarship, independently quite of theologic 
or ecclesiastical bias, decides that we must translate 
differently from the common version. The change re- 
quired is one that does not bear either this way or that 
on the baptismal teachings of the text. It simply 
brings out the general meaning more clearly. Let us 
translate as follows : " Which [that is to say, zuater] in 
antitype, baptism, is also now saving you (not the 
flesh's putting off of filth, but a good conscience' ap- 
peal to God) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ." * 
The meaning in paraphrase is this : As Noah, with his 
few, was saved in the ark by water, so you may regard 
yourselves as saved by water. The water by which 
you are saved is the water of baptism, of which bap- 
tismal water the water that saved Noah with his house- 
hold may serve to your minds as type. Noah was 
borne in the ark by water (or through water) from the 
old world that perished to the new world that emerged. 
So you pass by the water of baptism from the death 

* The New Revision, issued since this was written, thus translates : 
" Which also after a true likeness [margin, in the antitype~\ doth now 
save you, even baptism, not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, 
but the interrogation [margin, inquiry, or appeat\ of a good conscience 
toward God, through the resurrection of Christ." This fully justifies 
the author's translation. — Editor. 
10 



110 THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 

of sin to the life of righteousness. Water is in both 
cases the medium or element of transition. But be- 
ware of mistake. Baptism, the outward act, has no 
power to save. Baptism does not consist in a cleans- 
ing of the physical person ; its significance is not in 
putting away outward defilement. Indeed, it is not the 
flesh's act at all ; it is the act of the soul ; it is the re- 
generate " good " heart making its appeal of obedience 
to God. For, after all, it is only as baptism furnishes 
a symbol of resurrection that it can be said to save. 
You enact a resurrection in your baptism. The resur- 
rection which you thus enact in baptism is doubly em- 
blematic. It emblematizes your own resurrection from 
spiritual death to spiritual life ; but it emblematizes, too, 
that resurrection of Jesus Christ by which alone you 
experience your mighty change. It is the resurrection 
of Jesus Christ that saves. 

Thus natural and thus striking becomes the present 
allusion to baptism on the supposition that baptism is 
immersion. Suppose, on the contrary, that sprinkling 
is baptism, and note the change that the passage suffers 
in felicity and force. The water that saved Noah 
should, according to this latter supposition, be, not the 
water that buoyed and bore his ark over from the world 
before to the world after the flood, but the water of the 
falling rain, since only that feature of the great event 
could suggest the idea of a " sprinkling." But water 
conceived of as falling in the form of rain had nothing 
whatever to do with " saving " Noah. It was not the 
continued rain which went before the breaking up of 
the fountains of the great deep — it was the flood of 



THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 1 1 1 

water which the rain merely helped to make — that 
floated the ark with its living freight across, as it were, 
from world to world. Nothing was farther from Peter's 
thought as he approached this verse than the rain that 
preceded the deluge. His mind was full of the image 
of the flood with the ark buoyant on it bearing Noah 
and his family over (remember, he had just spoken of 
Christ's dying and being made again alive) from death 
to life. It would have been an impossible diversion for 
his mind to pass suddenly from this sublime conception 
to the comparatively trivial incident of the rainfall that 
preceded the flood. Yet such a diversion Peter must 
have made, in order to have baptism suggested to him 
at this moment — that is to say, it being supposed that 
baptism is sprinkling. Again, how entirely needless 
was the warning against mistaking baptism for a phys- 
ical cleansing if baptism is sprinkling! Nobody, sure- 
ly, ever was in any danger of mistakenly imagining that 
sprinkling could make clean — except, indeed, cere- 
monially clean, which is entirely out of the thought 
and out of the language of the writer in this place. 
There is, on the other hand, a presumed cleansing of 
personal defilement naturally associated in thought with 
immersion of the body. This bodily cleansing, how- 
ever, is nothing save as it signifies, not ceremonial 
cleansing, assuredly — for such a notion, I repeat, is 
not once present to the writer's mind, to be either ap- 
proved or rejected — but cleansing of the heart. Even 
this spiritual cleansing, however, is not here the chief 
thought in Peter's mind. Not spiritual cleansing in 
place of physical cleansing, but simply a good con- 



1 1 2 THE BA P TIS T PRINCIPL E. 

science confidently appealing to God in an act of obe- 
dience like that of Christ at his baptism when he would 
"fulfil all righteousness," — this is the purport of the 
parenthesis. Then follows the clause, " by the resur- 
rection of Jesus Christ." Christ had just before the 
allusion to Noah and the flood, and in the way of sug- 
gesting that, been spoken of as put to death and made 
alive. The idea of Christ's resurrection is therefore 
naturally resumed, or rather expressly mentioned again, 
it having been impliedly present all through the allu- 
sion to the flood. But how could the resurrection of 
Jesus Christ be brought into association with baptism, 
if the baptism were sprinkling? What possible rela- 
tion of resemblance can be conceived to be between a 
sprinkling and resurrection ? On the other hand, be- 
tween a resurrection and the emersion that of necessity 
succeeds and completes the act of momentary immer- 
sion the resemblance is too striking to escape any ob- 
server's attention. 

Thus much for the teaching of this allusion to bap- 
tism in so far as respects the form and nature of the 
rite. But the allusion speaks of baptism as a good 
conscience' appeal to God, or perhaps rather as the 
appeal to God for a good conscience. Neither the one 
nor the other of these two things, and no " appeal " of 
any sort on the subjects' part, could baptism be if un- 
conscious infants were baptized; which consideration 
decisively settles it that baptism as proper for uncon- 
scious infants was an idea quite absent from the mind 
of the writer. Carefully and candidly study it, and how 
unexpectedly, how surprisingly, self-vindicating proves 



THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 1 1 3 

to be the inspired word of God ! In so many different 
ways does the truth, once fairly apprehended, preclude 
and exclude error. The scriptural symbols/^ baptism, 
scarcely less than the scriptural symbols in baptism, tes- 
tify that baptism is, and can be, nothing but immersion. 
" Symbols in baptism" will form the title of a succeed- 
ing chapter complementary to the present discussion. 
Under that title another text of Scripture will be treated, 
whose twofold character is such that it might with equal 
propriety be treated here ; for the text to which I refer 
gives us at once baptism in a symbol and a symbol in 
baptism. This text occurs in the third chapter of John's 
Gospel. The essential words in it are these : " Born of 
water." In these words baptism is mentioned under 
the figure of a birth — a birth from, or out of, water. 
Such a figure for baptism contains an irresistible im- 
plication. Nothing but immersion satisfies the con- 
ditions of the case. In immersion those conditions 
are completely satisfied. The person of one baptized 
issues from the water in the act of immersion, like the 
breaking forth of a child at its birth. The baptized is 
justly and vividly described as " born of water." The 
figure fits exactly, but it fits exactly to the rite of 
immersion, and to no other. 

The argument created by all these various coinci- 
dences of figure would alone suffice, if every other 
argument were wanting, to establish beyond reasonable 
doubt the truth that baptism is immersion, and that 
nothing except immersion is baptism. 
10* H 



CHAPTER XIV. 
SYMEOLS IN BAPTISM. 

IT may be remarked at the outset that the purpose 
with which this study is undertaken does not re- 
quire us to regard the truly remarkable resemblances 
set forth by the New-Testament writers as discover- 
able in baptism in the light of symbols originally and 
designedly lodged in the rite by him who ordained it. 
Such I, for my part, do indeed believe these resem- 
blances to have been. Still, for the object of our pres- 
ent quest it will answer equally well to treat the pas- 
sages considered as mere rhetorical turns suggested 
by essential features of the rite which were perfectly 
familiar to those for whom the New Testament was 
primarily written, and which therefore were, of course, 
never questioned by them. Whether the analogies 
drawn out in Scripture between baptism and certain 
Christian facts and doctrines were foreordained by God 
to exist, in order to constitute that rite a kind of un- 
changeable object-lesson in religion, or whether these 
analogies were discovered as an afterthought by the 
wit of man under divine inspiration, — this, with respect 
to our immediate strictly limited purpose, is entirely 
immaterial. In either case equally the analogies, 
whether designed or fortuitous, on two points at 

114 



THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 115 

least speak an unambiguous language. Those two 
points are these : First, What, according to Scripture, 
is baptism ? and secondly, Who, according to Scripture, 
may be baptized ? 

Let us begin with the most extended and most im- 
portant of the passages in which symbolic meanings 
are drawn forth out of baptism. This passage is found 
in the sixth chapter of Romans : 

" Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized 
into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death ? There- 
fore we are buried with him by baptism into death ; 
that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the 
glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in 
newness of life." 

The first of these verses implies very plainly that 
all those with whom Paul identifies himself by saying 
" we," that is, all Christians — not simply all Roman 
Christians, for Paul was in no way identified with these 
more than with Christians generally — as being Chris- 
tians, had been or were supposed to have been, as a 
matter of course, baptized, and that the baptism thus 
universally experienced had a particular significance, 
the same in all the cases alike, connected with Christ's 
death. What this significance's the context sufficient- 
ly shows. Paul had just said with characteristic en- 
ergy of expression that Christians could not be habit- 
ual sinners, for the reason that as to sin they had 
died. The act of dying, not the state of being dead, 
is the true idea. Or do you not know, he asks, the 
meaning of your baptism ? When you were baptized 
in sign of entering into discipleship to Christ, you 



Il6 THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 

were baptized in sign of having died as Christ died. 
Such is the very symbolism of the rite. This is why 
you were buried in being baptized. Dead men only 
are buried ; your burial in baptism meant, therefore, 
that you had previously died. Of course, the death 
thus spoken of by Paul as experienced by the Chris- 
tian is a figurative death. It means the absolute break- 
ing of all relation with sin, a rupture final and com- 
plete, like that rupture which death produces. This, 
let it be observed, is said to be the significance of bap- 
tism. Whatever, therefore, the nature and form of the 
rite (that question may rest for the moment), the sig- 
nificance of the rite is that the subject of it has already 
died — not, be it noted, that he will die subsequently, 
not that he dies in the very act and article of the bap- 
tism, but that he has already died. This is said to be 
the case with all that have been baptized into Christ : 
they all died to sin before being baptized. In baptism 
they were " buried " — as persons already dead — that is, 
as persons who had distinctly dissolved all relation 
with sin. Is this the fact with unconscious infants ? 
Can it be ? Is it, can it be, the fact with any except 
truly regenerate souls ? 

The view may be taken that the act of dying to sin 
is meant to be represented by Paul as accomplished in 
the act of being baptized. " Being buried " is, then, 
only another way of setting forth the " dying." But 
of course, if "being baptized" is equivalent to "dying" 
and " being buried," the physical fact to the spiritual 
fact, it must be so, not literally, but in the way of fig- 
ure — that is to say, the subject of the baptism enacts a 



THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. II 7 

physical symbol of a spiritual experience. He says in 
language of sign to the eye, "As thus I go, like one 
dying, into a grave of water, so I die to sin." We may 
repeat our questions, Is this the fact with unconscious 
infants ? Can it be ? Is it, can it be, the fact with any 
except truly regenerate souls ? 

So much for the implication of this passage as to the 
proper subjects for baptism. Has the passage any im- 
plication as to the nature and form of the rite ? Let 
us inquire. 

Suppose the form of the rite had been sprinkling. 
Will anybody say that Paul's language would, on this 
supposition, have been naturally suggested ? The 
spiritual facts to be signified would still have been 
the same. But would the present figure of rhetoric, 
under which Paul exhibits the facts, have been equally 
appropriate and natural ? Let us try a substitution 
and see. We replace "baptize" and "baptism" by 
"sprinkle" and "sprinkling," and read the passage 
thus, and not otherwise changed. We have, " Know 
ye not that so many of us as were sprinkled into Jesus 
Christ were sprinkled into his death ? Therefore we 
are buried with him by the sprinkling into his death." 
Now, of course a just allowance is to be made for the 
discomposing effect of any important verbal change in 
so familiar a passage of Scripture. But, making such 
allowance, still do we not feel that there is some in- 
curable want of congruity between the idea of sprink- 
ling and the idea of burial as symbolized thereby? 
Make the alternative substitution of " immersion " in- 
stead of "sprinkling," and you have the same allow- 



Il8 THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 

ance as before to make for a verbal change in a familiar 
passage ; but is not the resultant final effect far less 
strange, far less, so to speak, grotesque and ridiculous ? 
Here is the new rendering in the words of a reputable 
printed version : " How shall we, who died to sin, live 
any longer therein ? Know ye not that all we who 
were immersed into Jesus Christ were immersed into 
his death? We were buried therefore with him by the 
immersion into his death." Now — answer fairly — is 
not this more in keeping with itself than was the 
alternate form with " sprinkling " substituted for " bap- 
tism " ? Is there any consonance between " sprink- 
ling " and a burial ? and is not the consonance strik- 
ing between a burial and "immersion " ? Supposing 
it were your task to devise a rite that should be sym- 
bolic at once of burial and of resurrection, what 
livelier resemblance could you wish than that con- 
tained in immersion ? What resemblance could be 
more purely conventional and awkward than that 
which sprinkling would supply ? And since baptism 
is unquestionably here used in such connection with 
the idea of burial and resurrection as to suggest a re- 
semblance between it and them — in such connection, 
moreover, as to make it almost certain that it was the 
perceived resemblance which dictated the form of ex- 
pression for the writer's thought, — since this is the case, 
can there be any reasonable doubt that baptism is im- 
mersion, and nothing else ? 

To be connected with the passage in Romans just 
considered is a parallel passage in the second chapter 
of Colossians : 



THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 1 1 9 

" Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are 
risen with him through the faith of the operation of 
God, who hath raised him from the dead." 

Burial and resurrection, the implications here, are 
symbolized in baptism. Surely this could not be the 
case if baptism were sprinkling. The likeness is most 
obvious and beautiful in the rite of immersion. Re- 
member, I am not now insisting that immersion was 
chosen, for the sake of the symbolism in it of burial 
and resurrection, to be the great rite of the Christian 
religion that it is. It suffices for my present purpose 
to point out merely that this symbolism found in it, 
w T hether put there of original intention or not, deter- 
mines the rite of baptism to be immersion, and nothing 
else. Still, I am willing to commit myself, and say that 
the tone of the allusions in Paul to baptism as figurative 
of burial and resurrection are just what the tone of 
such allusions would naturally be if it were a part of 
the apostle's customary inculcation thus to unfold the 
meaning of the ordinance. The allusions have less the 
air of incidental literary illustration than of regular and 
recognized Christian instruction. We get a truer and 
livelier sense of the foregoing passage if therein, as 
well as in the first verse of the third chapter, where 
the interrupted representation is resumed, we translate 
" were raised " instead of " are risen." This change, 
required by the Greek, makes more clear and unmis- 
takable the reference intended by the apostle to the 
particular point of time when the baptism occurred. 
It is as if we should read : " If then ye were, on oc- 
casion of your baptism, raised together with Christ." 



120 THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 

The symbol of resurrection — resurrection as a literal 
fact in the history of Jesus, resurrection as a spiritual 
fact in the experience of the Christian — this twofold 
symbol of resurrection found in baptism as treated by 
Scripture can be satisfied only on the supposition that 
baptism is immersion ; while, on that supposition, it is 
completely and easily satisfied. The inference is irre- 
sistible that immersion, and nothing but immersion, 
is baptism. 

We take up now a group of passages in which a 
different symbol from that of resurrection — namely, 
the symbol of birth, a second birth — seems to be 
brought to light in Scripture as discoverable in bap- 
tism. " Seems," I say ; for here, I confess, we enter 
upon ground where I tread with less confident steps. 
The Scriptures to be treated in this immediate part 
of our discussion are obscure and difficult, and I shall 
not dogmatize. I content myself with indicating what, 
after considerable study, appears to me to be upon the 
whole the most satisfactory among the various possi- 
ble interpretations. 

The first of the passages that may fairly be under- 
stood to suggest a symbolism for regeneration as con- 
tained in baptism occurs in the third chapter of John's 
Gospel. Our Saviour is there reported as saying to 
Nicodemus : 

" Except a man be born of water and [of the] Spirit 
he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." 

The words " of the " embraced in brackets have no 
equivalent in the Greek, and may therefore be omitted. 
The omission of these words leaves us free, if it does 



THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 121 

not even oblige us, to understand that one birth only, 
doubly characterized as birth of water and Spirit, is 
spoken of here ; not two births, one of water and one 
of Spirit. Whatever, therefore, birth of water may 
mean, it means that in inseparable unity with birth of 
the Spirit. But what does birth of water mean ? Let 
us consider. The most striking thing in the then cur- 
rent history of the Jewish nation, next to the ministry 
of Jesus, and at the actual moment perhaps hardly 
second to that, was the baptism of John. When Jesus 
first responded to Nicodemus his expression was, " Ye 
must be born again." This was designed, no doubt, 
to be a stimulating paradox. Nicodemus received it 
as such, and set his wits to work to divine its mean- 
ing. Very likely his thoughts went to John's baptism. 
" Does Jesus mean that ?" he asked himself. Not sat- 
isfied, he seeks the Lord's own explanation. The Lord 
perceived the guess that Nicodemus had made, and 
answered accordingly : " Baptism, yes ; but more than 
baptism — baptism and what baptism implies. I said 
you must be born again, and you are conjecturing that 
I may mean baptism ; and so indeed I do, but only in 
its symbolic relation to something else. Except a 
man be born of water and Spirit, he cannot enter into 
the kingdom of God." At any rate, it is perfectly 
evident that birth of Spirit is the idea that receives 
all the emphasis in the Saviour's thought; that idea 
he dwells upon and illustrates. The idea of birth 
from water he mentions merely to dismiss ; he uses it 
as a stepping-stone of transition, and returns to his 
first real thought — namely, the need of a new birth. 
11 



122 THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 

This use he makes of it only because the idea of bap- 
tism was already in the mind of Nicodemus ; which 
fact, and not any priority of baptism to regeneration, 
caused baptism to be spoken of first 

All this, of course, assumes that " born of water " 
alludes to baptism. That it does is the nearly unan- 
imous opinion of commentators. It is clear from the 
context, as well as from the general tenor of Scripture, 
that baptism, thus alluded to in the phrase " born of 
water," bears in Christ's thought some quite subordi- 
nate relation to regeneration. The most natural rela- 
tion to suppose is the relation of symbol. Baptism 
represents regeneration by resemblance of some sort. 
What is the resemblance ? The very phrase " born 
of water," to imply baptism, answers the question. 
If baptism can properly be spoken of as a birth from 
water, the reason why is obvious. Baptism is a sort 
of birth from water ; the subject in baptism issues 
from the water as the child at birth issues from the 
womb. Hence, to " be born of water " is a not un- 
natural figure of speech for to " be baptized." It 
is, however, a figure of speech not likely to have 
been employed on this occasion by Christ, as also was 
baptism itself not likely to have been mentioned at 
all, except for the idea which I have ventured to sup- 
pose was awakened in the mind of Nicodemus by his 
attempt to solve the paradox, " Ye must be born again." 
I freely acknowledge that what I propose is not demon- 
strative, but only probable, exegesis. I do not build 
any vital argument upon it. That " born of water " 
should, as is generally held, refer to baptism, supplies 



THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 1 23 

an argument for immersion as baptism that does not 
in the least require to be supplemented by our consid- 
ering that baptism further is symbolic of regeneration. 

On the supposition that the wellnigh universally 
received interpretation is right, we have a mention 
here made by our Saviour of baptism in terms of 
symbol — that is, mention of it as a birth of, or out 
of, water. To what notion of baptism does such 
language fit and conform but to the notion of baptism 
as immersion ? What likeness is there between birth 
and, for instance, a sprinkling ? But between birth 
and the emersion following and completing an im- 
mersion the likeness is obvious and striking. That 
baptism should be referred to as a birth of, or out of, 
or from, water fixes the nature of baptism beyond 
reasonable question. But if our present interpreta- 
tion of the whole passage be sound, we have here 
something more than the mere mentioning of bap- 
tism in such terms of symbol as settle the form of 
the rite. We have also such a connection of birth 
from water with birth from the Spirit as makes bap- 
tism, symbolized by birth, itself symbolic of birth. 
This text, therefore, does two mutually complement- 
ary things : it first presents baptism in a symbol, the 
symbol of natural birth, and then it presents also a 
symbol in baptism, the symbol of spiritual birth. In 
whichever way you choose to regard it, baptism as 
thus presented, symbolized or symbolizing, refuses 
still to be anything but immersion. 

There is, however, another text in which the same 
symbolism, that of spiritual new birth, appears to be 



124 THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 

drawn out from the rite of baptism. This other text 
occurs in the third chapter of Titus : " He saved us 
by the washing of regeneration." " The washing of 
regeneration" is a mistranslation. It should read, 
" the laver, ox font, of regeneration." The word mis- 
translated "washing" means, not the act or fact of 
bathing, but a vessel designed to hold water for a 
full bath. Paul here, then, alludes to baptism as a 
bath : a " bath of regeneration " he calls it — that is, 
not a bath producing regeneration, but a bath accom- 
panying regeneration and signifying that. What is 
regeneration ? Simply second birth, being born again. 
How is regeneration connected in thought with a bath, 
so as to give rise to the expression " bath of regenera- 
tion " ? Why, the bath symbolizes the regeneration. 
How? By being a bath, or an immersion, out of 
which the subject issues, like a child from the womb, 
symbolically regenerated, figuratively born into a new 
life. The symbolism of regeneration thus found, if 
legitimately found, in baptism, makes it necessary that 
the baptism in which it is found should be immersion. 
Sprinkling would by no means furnish such a sym- 
bolism. 

We have in the third chapter of Galatians this lan- 
guage : " As many of you as were baptized into 
Christ have put on Christ." More exactly, "As 
many of you as were baptized into Christ put on 
Christ " — the two things, namely, the being baptized 
and the putting on of Christ, being considered as 
coincident in time. The word used for " putting 
on " is the word ordinarily and distinctively em- 



THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 12$ 

ployed to denote the putting on of raiment. Such 
is, no doubt, the figure intended to be here intro- 
duced. The Christian, then, was represented by Paul 
as clothing himself with Christ. This is one of the 
ways in which the great idea of the Christian's union 
and indentification with Christ is set forth. The per- 
son of a man is wrapped around by, is contained in, 
the garments that he wears — he is in them. So the 
believer is " in Christ ;" he has put on Christ, and 
Christ now clothes him. The figure of being clothed 
with Christ thus presents the idea of being in Christ. 
But now why is baptism spoken of in connection ? 
There was a reason for it. What is the reason ? The 
relation affirmed or implied is that in the act of being 
baptized the act of putting on Christ was performed. 
Now, of course, no one that we need now to consider 
supposes that this was literally the case — in other 
words, that literally being baptized unites the subject 
with Christ. In what sense, then, was it the case ? How 
was baptism the act of putting on Christ ? Why, figura- 
tively, representatively, symbolically. The act of being 
baptized represented the act of putting on Christ. The 
rite had that significance ; its symbolism was such. 
Baptism, then, contains a symbol of union with Christ. 
How? If sprinkling be baptism, no answer is possible. 
It is easy to answer if baptism be immersion. Noth- 
ing could more strikingly typify the spiritual fact of the 
believer's entering into Christ so as thenceforth to be, 
according to Paul's favorite phrase, occurring in the 
immediate context, "" in Christ," — nothing, I say, could 
more strikingly typify this spiritual fact than the phys- 
11* 



126 THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 

ical fact of immersion in water. For a moment the 
water envelops the person of the subject like a flowing 
garment. The subject has put that robe of water on ; 
he is in it. His ritual act speaks this language: "Thus 
I put on Christ. He clothes me thus. I am in him 
now, as I am in this water." Now, certainly the Ga- 
latian Christians had all, in being baptized, performed 
some act that Paul could use as a figure for putting on 
Christ. What was the act ? Was it being sprinkled ? 
Was it not being immersed ? And does not the use by 
Paul of baptism as a symbol for the believer's putting 
on of Christ, in the sense of his becoming one with, of 
his entering into, Christ, imply immersion, to the ex- 
clusion of sprinkling, for baptism ? 

The symbolic reference in baptism to the idea of the 
believer's mystical union with Christ is probably the 
true explanation of the expression " baptized into 
Christ " wherever in Scripture this expression occurs. 
The Great Commission says, u Baptizing them into the 
name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy 
Ghost." Our English Bible renders " in the name of," 
but this is manifestly an inadequate, and even a mis- 
leading, translation. Elsewhere we have " baptized into 
the name of the Lord Jesus." In still other places the 
word "name" is omitted, and the expression is short- 
ened to " baptized into Christ." The preposition is in 
all these cases the same, " into." The word " name " 
is, in such a use, a Hebraism for the personality of the 
being named. We get the real force of the expression 
when we omit the word " name " altogether, and read, 
for example in the Great Commission, " Baptizing 



THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 12*] 

them into the Father and the Son and the Holy- 
Ghost" 

The sense is, "Signifying by baptism the entrance 
of the subject into a mystical union of life with God in 
his three persons, Father, Son, and Spirit." The word 
" name " is, in fact, as I have said, sometimes omitted 
in Scripture language, and the expression reduced to 
" baptized into Christ." We have just been examining 
an instance in which this shortened expression occurs 
in very significant connection with an unmistakable 
reference to the great idea of union and identification 
with Christ — namely, the text, "As many of you as 
were baptized into Christ put on Christ." This inter- 
prets being " baptized into Christ " to mean " entering 
into Christ," " becoming one with him." In one word, 
baptism symbolizes the spiritual union of the believer 
with Christ. Are we not warranted, then, in reverting 
from this implied interpretation to the use of language 
in the Great Commission, and understanding that sol- 
emn command to make baptism, not simply an arbitrary- 
ritual act without special significance of its own, but a 
symbol of the disciple's union with God, of his passing 
into, and so remaining in, God — of his partaking of the 
divine nature ? How shocking that we should confuse 
the symbol of a fact so sublime, and maim it to speak 
in a dialect of Babel, by substituting for baptism some- 
thing entirely different, something breathing not a hint 
of a mystery that is at once too high and too hard not 
to need every possible expedient for keeping it signified 
and vivid to our minds and our hearts — the mystery of 
the union of the human with the divine ! 



128 THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 

But union of Christ's disciples, taken individually 
with Christ, is not the only union of which baptism is 
the symbol. In the twelfth chapter of First Corinthians 
we find the expression, " For by one Spirit are we all 
baptized into one body." " Ye," Paul soon afterward 
says, speaking as to Christians taken collectively — " ye 
are the body of Christ." It follows, then, that this 
pregnant and manifold symbol, Christian baptism, sig- 
nifies as well the mutual union of believers with each 
other as their common union with their Lord. That 
such a meaning was taught by Paul to lie enfolded in 
baptism helps to explain a famous passage in Ephesians. 
I refer to the passage in which occur the words, " one 
Lord, one faith, one baptism." The main idea of this 
passage was to assemble all the watchwords of mutual 
unity among themselves likely to make the Ephesian 
Christians dwell at peace with one another. Now, the 
fact of baptism being taught by Paul to symbolize the 
believer's incorporation into one body with his brethren 
makes it clear why baptism, being thus significant to 
apostolic converts, should be invoked here as a rally ing- 
cry for union and peace. Conceive the effect of such 
a reminder to disciples instructed to know that when 
they yielded themselves to baptism, their entrance into 
the watery flood meant that thus they entered into one 
universal brotherhood of redeemed souls making up 
together the mystical body of Christ ! How utterly 
without any such force of eloquent symbol and re- 
minder would be an arbitrary rite of sprinkling ! The 
suggestion springing from resemblance would be want- 
ing. It is thus seen that in order to symbolize union 



THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 1 29 

of Christians among themselves, as baptism certainly 
is used by Paul to do, it is necessary that baptism 
should be an immersion of the whole person of the 
subject in water, a kind of incorporation of the man 
with the element. 

In addition to the symbolic meanings already un- 
folded, there is likewise presented in Scripture the sym- 
bol of spiritual purification as belonging to baptism. 
There are several texts that make this symbolism of 
the rite sufficiently clear. In the Acts it is related by 
Paul that Ananias addressed him in these words : 
" Arise and be baptized, and wash away thy sins." 
Here baptism is indisputably made to symbolize a 
spiritual cleansing on the part of the subject. In the 
fifth chapter of Ephesians we have this : " Even as 
Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it, 
that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing 
of water by the word." Paul here speaks of the church 
as bride to Christ ; his aim in doing so is to bring for- 
ward the highest conceivable sanction for the injunction 
he is laying upon husbands to love their wives. It is 
natural, therefore, for him to go on in a kind of parallel 
drawn between the husband's relation to his wife and 
Christ's relation to his church. As the bridegroom in 
espousing the bride gives presents and dowry, so Christ 
does : he gives himself for his church. As the Oriental 
bride before her nuptials takes a special bath in prepa- 
ration, so Christ arranged it that the church, his spouse, 
should be cleansed for union with himself with a laver, 
or bathing-font, in which the word of truth should work 
the purifying effect. The term " water," " of water," 

I 



130 THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 

seems to be introduced to point more clearly the allu- 
sion to baptism. Baptism is thus constituted a cor- 
respondence to the ante-nuptial bath taken by the 
Eastern bride. The " word," the spoken word (such is 
the sense of the Greek original) — that is, the gospel 
preached — is really the purifying element, in accordance 
with what Christ prays : " Sanctify them through [in] 
thy truth ; thy word is truth." The water of baptism 
(baptism considered as a symbol of spiritual cleansing) 
is the copula that joins the two ideas — namely, that of 
the bride's formal purification and that of the sanctifica- 
tion of the church — in the relation of apparent resem- 
blance which was needful to be established, in order to 
serve the purposes of Paul's rhetoric at this point. The 
full bath of the bride preceding her nuptials, and the 
baptism of the church, individual by individual, in the 
purifying element of the spoken word, on the entrance 
of each into mystical marriage with the Lord, — such 
seems to be the comparison intended by Paul. The 
express mention of " water," however, makes it evident 
that the literal baptism, or immersion, of the convert 
in water as invariably the condition of discipleship 
was what suggested the parallel to Paul's mind. Man- 
ifestly, the parallel could have been suggested only on 
the supposition that the convert's baptism was a bath 
or immersion, like the full bath of the bride. 

Clearest, however, and for our immediate object full- 
est, of all allusions in Scripture to the symbol of puri- 
fication in baptism is perhaps the passage in Hebrews : 
" Let us draw near with a true heart in the full assur- 
ance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil 



THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 131 

conscience and our bodies washed with pure water." 
A better punctuation connects the last clause with what 
follows instead of with what precedes, thus : " Let us 
draw near, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil 
conscience ; and, having our bodies washed with pure 
water, let us hold fast the profession of our faith." 
This change of connection is in no way material to the 
use now about to be made of the passage. It is a point 
of interest, and I merely mention it in passing. The 
imagery and rhetoric of all this strain of exhortation 
are derived from the ceremonial of the Old Dispen- 
sation — a ceremonial elaborately prefigurative of the 
realities of the New. Two conditions affecting the 
believer are here named : one is, that the heart have 
been sprinkled from an evil conscience ; the other, that 
the body have been washed with pure water. Both 
conditions are stated in a form suggested by the ritual 
of the Mosaic economy. There was a sprinkling and 
there was a washing of the body required by the 
Levitical law. The sprinkling was with blood mingled 
and prepared in a certain manner rigorously prescribed. 
The washing of the body was with clean water in the 
way of full immersion. The washing followed the 
sprinkling. The explanation is carefully, painstak- 
ingly, repetitiously made in the Epistle to the He- 
brews that the sprinkling referred to as a feature of 
the present dispensation is a sprinkling with the blood 
of Jesus. It is, I believe, demonstrable — has, I be- 
lieve, been demonstrated — that sprinkling as a usage 
of the Bible, whether of the Old Testament or the 
New, is never a sprinkling with water, mere and pure 



132 THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 

water. But, however this may be, the sprinkling here 
referred to is a sprinkling with the blood of Jesus. In 
a previous chapter the writer of the Epistle has said : 
" For if the blood of bulls and goats and the ashes of 
an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the puri- 
fying of the flesh : how much more shall the blood of 
Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself 
without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead 
works to serve the living God ?" In a chapter follow- 
ing, this language occurs : "And to Jesus the mediator 
of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling 
that speaketh better things than that of Abel." The 
sprinkling meant in the text on which we are dwelling 
is, accordingly, a sprinkling with blood, the blood of 
Jesus. It is, of course, then, not a literal, but a fig- 
urative, sprinkling. Christ's blood is not literally 
sprinkled; it could not be literally sprinkled on liv- 
ing human " hearts." Christ's blood, as a figure of 
Christ's offering of himself unto death on our behalf, 
does, however, produce a cleansing effect on souls that 
believe, answering to the effect produced by the typical 
blood of sacrificial victims sprinkled to make the ob- 
jects, persons, or things affected by it ceremonially 
clean. The work of cleansing signified here is an in- 
ward work; it is justification, forgiveness. But the 
believer, besides being thus figuratively " sprinkled," 
as to his heart, with the blood of Jesus, is also 
" washed," as to his body, with pure water. The 
words " body " and " water " determine the washing 
to be a literal one : it is baptism. The full sense, ac- 
cordingly, in paraphrase is this : " Let us draw near to 



THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 1 33 

God, having been made fit to do so by the gracious 
justifying act of our Heavenly Father for Christ's sake 
forgiving and abolishing our sins. And, having ful- 
filled all righteousness by submitting our bodies to be 
washed with pure water — that is, by being baptized — 
let us keep faithful to the profession that we have thus 
solemnly made." 

Here, then, in a crucial passage of Scripture — a pas- 
sage that might almost seem to have been providently 
introduced by the Spirit of God on purpose to forestall 
and preclude the very mistake that, notwithstanding, 
so many Christian people do strangely make, — here, 
then, I say, we have sprinkling and immersion both 
unmistakably mentioned : sprinkling in such a way 
mentioned as to render it certain that sprinkling can- 
not be baptism ; immersion in such a way mention- 
ed as to render it certain that baptism must be im- 
mersion. 

In conclusion, we may say that there is no symbolic 
import of baptism suggested in Scripture which does 
not require, in order to satisfy it, that baptism should 
be immersion. Baptism symbolizes the Saviour's 
death and his resurrection; it symbolizes the believ- 
er's death to sin and his resurrection to righteousness ; 
it apparently symbolizes the mystery of the new birth, 
or regeneration ; it symbolizes the fact of the believer's 
union and identification with Christ : it symbolizes the 
fact of the believer's incorporation into one body with 
his brethren ; it symbolizes the idea of the believer's 
purification from sin. In all these symbolic relations 
of baptism, sprinkling fails to be a symbol, and so fails 
12 



134 THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 

to be baptism ; while, in the same relations, immersion 
as a symbol is its own sufficient vindication. 

Is it safe, is it obedient, to wreck all this precious 
preaching and teaching power of an ordinance of the 
Lord — upon what? Upon a caprice, an assumption, 
a tradition of men. 



CHAPTER XV. 
BIBLICAL "BELITTLING" OF BAPTISM. 

ONE of the most pronouncedly anti-Baptist of 
the Paedobaptist journals lately, in discussing 
baptism, used the word " belittled " in a manner to 
challenge attention. It said that " Christ and his dis- 
ciples have in no other case [than that of baptism] 
shown the least interest in ritualistic questions, but 
have consistently belittled them." It seems thence 
to infer that baptism too, as a " ritualistic question," 
is authoritatively " belittled." It has occurred to me 
that a fair exhibition of the facts as to this point might 
just now be timely. The real place that baptism occu- 
pies in the inculcations of the New Testament is a 
point not always adequately understood by Baptists, 
and is by Psedobaptists in general, as I believe, very 
strikingly misunderstood. 

" Suppose that you Baptists are right in your views 
as to what baptism properly is, and as to what persons 
may properly be baptized; still, are you not making 
the whole subject far more important than Scripture 
makes it?" Some such question as this would, no 
doubt, pretty fairly represent the attitude of mind 
toward the discussion of the subject of baptism which 
a very large number — perhaps the great majority — of 

135 



13^ THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 

Christian people more or less consciously assume. 
And it is a very natural attitude of mind, very natural, 
for those who have not as yet given the matter much 
serious attention. 

And yet, to postpone for a moment our purposed 
appeal to Scripture, might it not seem that the man- 
ifest, the undeniable, practical relation which all Chris- 
tendom maintains to the rite should estop any indi- 
vidual Christian from disparaging the importance of 
baptism ? For what do we observe ? We observe all 
Christendom, the Christendom of to-day, with excep- 
tions comparatively so insignificant that they may 
without impropriety be disregarded, faithfully, punc- 
tiliously practising a rite which goes by the name of 
baptism. We turn our eyes backward over nineteen 
centuries of Christian history in the past, and we ob- 
serve that this has always, without interruption, been 
the case. Assuredly, the history of the Christian 
church, the universal present practice of the Christian 
church, pronounce in favor of the importance of bap- 
tism a judgment that it would be presumption on 
the part of any individual to despise. 

But of course a judgment like this, deserving, as it 
is by immemorial prescription, by universal assent, of 
our sincere respect, and even of our presumptive con- 
currence, is nevertheless not necessarily a final and 
conclusive disposition of the matter. The Bible itself, 
and the Bible alone, is the court of ultimate appeal. 
If the Bible reverses the sentence of precedent and 
example, why, precedent and example, no matter how 
reverend and imposing, must submit in silence. If, 



THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. I 37 

on the other hand, the Bible sustains the verdict of 
history and usage, what, then, is there to be said 
against the voice of such judges speaking in unison? 
Reason certainly can say nothing except to advise 
accepting their sentence without demur. To the 
Bible, then, let us go to see what the Bible may teach 
as to the importance of baptism. 

In the first place, Jesus himself was baptized. He 
did not consider baptism too unimportant to receive 
his attention. It is not the least matter now whether 
the baptism which Jesus received at the hands of John 
the Baptist is to be regarded as the same with the 
baptism which Jesus himself afterward appointed. 
At all events, the baptism which Jesus appointed is 
not less important than that which John the Baptist 
administered ; and the baptism which John the Baptist 
administered was important enough for Jesus to make 
a long journey to receive it. The baptism which 
Christ appointed is thus seen to be important from 
the fact that a less important baptism was sanctioned 
by Christ's example of obedience to it. 

In the second place, Jesus himself baptized. Now, 
whether Jesus baptized with his own hands or by the 
hands of his disciples does not signify. He baptized : 
this is distinctly related in the Gospels. In one case, 
to be sure, it is also said in connection that Jesus did 
not himself baptize, but baptized by his disciples. 
This explanation, however, only makes the fact that 
Jesus baptized more striking. For some reason — 
what reason we need not conjecture — Jesus at one 
period of his ministry chose not to baptize with his 
12 * 



138 THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 

own hands ; at the same time, he baptized. Whatever 
the reason may have been for Christ's not baptizing 
with his own hands, that reason did not hold for his 
not baptizing. Baptism was so important that, though 
he did not administer it himself, Christ still would ad- 
minister it by his disciples. In addition, accordingly, 
to the argument for the importance of baptism drawn 
from Christ's example in being baptized, we have the 
argument drawn from Christ's example in baptizing. 

This, however, is not the whole, nor does it even 
constitute the greatest part, of the argument that 
Christ himself, in his own personal act, furnishes for 
the importance of baptism. Besides submitting to 
baptism and besides practising baptism, Christ dis- 
tinctly and expressly enjoins baptism. We might, of 
course, inexpugnably infer that Christ enjoined bap- 
tism from the fact that under Christ's own personal 
and immediate superintendence and authority Christ's 
disciples baptized. But we are not left to inference, 
even where inference is so irresistible as this. Christ's 
command to baptize survives in express language. 
Nor does this statement fairly present the case as it 
is. It was not only in express and unmistakable 
terms that Christ commanded baptism, but it was 
under circumstances peculiarly solemn and impres- 
sive. He commanded baptism in what would seem 
to be the very last words that he ever spoke on earth 
with human lips before his final ascension to the 
skies. The directions which on that occasion he left 
with his disciples were few, they were momentous, 
and — they comprised a direction to baptize. Those 



THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 1 39 

directions were comprehensive of the sum-total of 
Christian duty, and they accordingly descended to no 
particulars, with one remarkable exception : that ex- 
ception was baptism. What do I gather from this ? 
That baptism is of all things in the Christian religion 
the thing most important ? By no means. There 
are plenty of reasons furnished in Scripture for not 
taking this view of baptism — of baptism, that is to 
say, in itself. That baptism, therefore, being, as is 
abundantly demonstrable from Scripture, not in itself 
of such commanding comparative importance, should 
yet be mentioned in that brief summary of duty 
which we call the Great Commission, shows that 
baptism must draw a significance entitling it to its 
place in that august statute of the kingdom of heaven 
from some relation that the rite holds to another idea. 
What is that idea, and what is that relation? That 
idea is the idea of return, on the part of the subject, 
from rebellion against God, of present entire self- 
consecration to God, of a real though inscrutable 
identification with God. Such is the idea, and the 
relation of baptism to this idea is, that baptism means 
the idea. Hence the language of the command : 
" Discipling all nations, baptizing them into the [name 
of the] Father and [of] the Son and [of] the Holy 
Ghost" Baptism was, and it was to be, the insepar- 
able sign or symbol of this great idea of return to 
God and incorporation in him. Thus it is to be ac- 
counted for that baptizing should be commanded in 
the Great Commission, not for its own sake, but for 
the sake of what it signified. So inseparable was the 



140 THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 

sign from the thing signified that the thing signified 
was at once suggested when its sign was named. Is 
not baptism important ? If in Christ's thought the 
sign was thus nearly one with the thing signified, can 
we afford to separate the two? Do we not hear a 
solemn voice saying, What God hath joined together 
let not man put asunder? But we do put asunder 
things that God has joined if we either neglect bap- 
tism altogether, or put baptism in the wrong place, 
or put a wrong thing in the place of baptism. Three 
things, then, in Christ's own personal act show the 
importance of baptism : First, Christ's example in 
being baptized ; seco?tdly y his example in baptizing ; 
and thirdly, his enjoining of baptism. 

Thus much might well suffice for establishing the 
importance of baptism from Scripture. But Scripture 
testimony on this point is far from being exhausted. 
On the great first occasion of preaching that occurred 
under the Dispensation of the Holy Spirit, the Holy 
Spirit followed and confirmed the teaching of Christ as 
to the importance of baptism ; for Peter, speaking for 
the rest of the apostles as well as for himself, and 
speaking under stress of that awful inspiration which 
then first descended in power from heaven upon men, 
told the convinced and convicted, now become obedi- 
ent, among his hearers, " Repent and be baptized, every 
one of you." That the duty of baptism was not for 
that single occasion only, nor only for Jews, would 
need no proof. But proof is at hand ; for we read 
that on a subsequent occasion Peter, having been 
taught by a vision from heaven that the Gentiles too 



THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 141 

were to be sharers with the Jews of the blessings of 
the gospel, asked aloud, " Can any man forbid water 
that these [certain Gentiles, that is to say] should not 
be baptized which have received the Holy Ghost as 
well as we ?" Peter then " commanded them to be 
baptized in the name of the Lord." Here, at least, 
Peter apparently, like his Lord during one period of 
the Lord's ministry, did not baptize with his own 
hands. But baptism at somebody's hands was a mat- 
ter of course. Still, it was not left to be simply a mat- 
ter of course ; it was expressly commanded. So im- 
portant does baptism appear to have been in the in- 
spired view of Peter. That Peter was not in this re- 
spect peculiar among the original apostles is evident 
from the distinct statement that in enjoining baptism 
he stands forth " with the eleven," manifestly their ac- 
cepted spokesman, replying on their behalf as well as 
on his own to questions that were addressed to himself 
simply in common with them. 

The apostle to the Gentiles takes the same view of 
baptism with those who preceded him in the aposto- 
late. We have his example of personal obedience to 
the ordinance. We know that he baptized, that he 
baptized a few at least with his own hands. This Paul 
says himself; and the connection in which he says it 
shows beyond the shadow of doubt that under his 
preaching the baptism of converts was a quite invari- 
able practice. Paul, indeed, tells us that he was like 
Jesus and like Peter in not generally baptizing with 
his own hands. This, however, simply serves to teach 
us that who baptized was not important. It is a 



142 THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 

wholly false inference from what Paul says on this 
point, the inference that he did not attach importance 
to baptism itself. Quite the contrary, indeed, is im- 
plied. Paul was sent, he said, not to baptize, but to 
preach the gospel ; true, but the gospel that Paul 
preached is seen from Paul's own language to have 
been a gospel of obedience to Christ that included 
baptism as the invariable accompaniment of disciple- 
ship. But Paul testified to the importance in other 
ways than by being himself baptized, by himself bap- 
tizing, and by uniformly having his converts baptized : 
he made baptism the means of repeated and varied 
and most impressive doctrinal and practical inculca- 
tion. He did this in such a way that the inculcation 
depends for its force upon the invariable fact presup- 
posed, of baptism as>. having occurred in the case of 
every convert. The inculcation depended, further, for 
its force upon the form and nature of the rite. That 
point, however, I do not insist upon here. Let it here 
suffice to say that these inculcations of Paul draw their 
force at least from the presumed fact that baptism had 
occurred in the case of every convert. Would Paul 
have staked important teaching upon a circumstance 
not deemed by him important ? Or if he would, and 
if he did, then is not that otherwise unimportant cir- 
cumstance thereby made important? Peter, too, al- 
ludes to baptism in the way of illustration, the terms 
of allusion being such as to imply that baptism occu- 
pied a conspicuous place in the teaching and practice 
of the apostolic churches. 

Thus important in the estimate put upon it in Scrip- 



THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 1 43 

ture does baptism appear to be. Remember that this 
view of baptism as important is entirely irrespective of 
the question what baptism is. No matter now as to 
that. Baptism is something, it is anything, it is a thing 
unknown ; but, whatever it may be, it is important. 
That point is settled beyond dispute. Now, is it un- 
important to determine if we can what a thing thus 
important really is ? Is it enough to admit that bap- 
tism is so important as by all means to require from 
us something that we shall call baptizing? is this 
enough ? Or does common sense, does reason, does 
the spirit of obedience, require that in a matter so im- 
portant we try to find out exactly what Christ wants to 
have us do, and then that we scrupulously do just that 
and nothing else ? Do we escape ritualism by pains- 
takingly performing a rite if only we do not mind at 
all to perform the rite ? Do we not rather with great 
accuracy fall plumb into the very pit that we think to 
avoid ? What is it but ritualism, the very essence of 
ritualism, ritualism mere and pure, ritualism with no 
salt of other element accompanying to save it, — what 
else, I say, than ritualism thus purified seven times is 
it to insist at all hazards on doing something t some- 
thing outward, while we lift up our hands and protest 
that we do not care a penny whether what we do is 
what was commanded ; we only feel that a rite must be 
performed ? Yet precisely such, strictly ascertained, 
is the real meaning of the attitude toward baptism held 
by large numbers of Christians who honestly, and even 
indignantly, suppose themselves to be fighting against 
ritualism in opposing Baptist views. The difference 



144 THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 

between Psedobaptists and Baptists at this point is to 
a great extent the difference between ritualism and obe- 
dience. Those who observe a rite, not concerning 
themselves to observe the rite, ritualize ; those who ob- 
serve the rite because that rite is commanded, obey. 
Psedobaptists perform a rite ; Baptists obey the ordi- 
nance. Baptists simply apply to baptism their consti- 
tutive principle of obedience. Well is it if with equal 
fidelity they apply the same principle to other things 
of not less importance ! 



CHAPTER XVI. 
A TALK WITH CHRISTIANS NOT BAPTISTS. 

OBEYING is what Christ wants of us. " Why call 
ye me Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I 
say ?" is his half-severe, half-pathetic way of insistance. 
But we are very apt to think that obeying is no highly 
important matter, provided only we have a good ex- 
cuse for not obeying ; at least, we seem to act as if we 
thought this. Accordingly, what a lavish use of in- 
genuity in providing ourselves with excuses for not 
doing just the thing that Christ commands ! I have 
sometimes thought that if we spent as much mental 
force in seeking to obey as we do in seeking reasons 
why we need not obey, it would double at once the 
volume of our obedience. And what necessary thing 
is there left out of that formula for life to the Chris- 
tian which should consist in enjoining the increase 
of obedience to Christ ? 

I do not narrow this principle to its application to 
the ordinance of baptism ; but to that ordinance the 
application of the principle is singularly apt. Christ 
says, " Be baptized ;" and, strange to consider, the 
great mass of Christians, instead of obeying this 
simple command, deliver themselves up to finding 
reasons why the command is not to be obeyed. I 

13 K 145 



I46 THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 

purpose here to examine a few of the reasons most 
commonly advanced for this incredible neglect of 
obedience. 

One says, " Why, I have been baptized. Christ 
does not require me to be baptized more than once, 
does he ?" Your reason for not obeying, then, is that 
you are not commanded. That fact is certainly an 
excellent reason, if indeed the fact exist. But are you 
sure that the fact exists ? Are you sure that you are 
not commanded ? What makes you think you are 
not ? " Because I have already been baptized." 
When did your baptism occur ? " When I was an 
infant." Were you conscious of it at the time ? 
" Of course I was not." You took no active part 
in it then? "No; it was done for me." What was 
done for you ? Not what was commanded, for the 
command was, " Be baptized," and of course being bap- 
tized was not done for you. You were baptized your- 
self, were you not? Nobody was baptized in your 
place, as I understand. Being baptized was not, 
then, done for you ? What was done for you ? I 
ask again. " Well, the baptizing, then, was done for 
me, if you will be so very exact." Now I begin to 
understand. The baptizing was done for you. Then 
it was Christ's command to you, an infant, to baptize, 
and, you being too young yourself to obey, somebody 
obeyed for you. Is that it? "No; certainly, that is 
not it. The command to me was, ' Be baptized/ and 
not, ' Baptize.' " Did you, then, obey the command, 
"Be baptized"? "No; I was too young. It was 
obeyed for me." Well, no, not that command ; for 



THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 1 47 

the being baptized was not done by anybody else 
for you. You were baptized yourself, you know. 
What the rest did was to baptize you and to have 
you baptized. The minister baptized you, and your 
friends had you baptized. The being baptized was 
done by you if it was done by anybody. Was it 
done by you ? " Certainly I was baptized." Did 
you do the being baptized? "No; it was all done 
for me." But no ; the being baptized was not done 
for you. Only the baptizing and the having baptized 
were done for you. You were baptized yourself, you 
say. The act of being baptized, then, was not done 
for you. Did you do it for yourself? " I did nothing 
whatever for myself." If, then, you did not yourself 
obey the command, " Be baptized," and if your friends 
did not obey it for you, how, pray, was it obeyed at 
all ? In your case it never has been obeyed. There 
it stands, as plain as letters can make it, " Be bap- 
tized." Instead of obeying it, you tell me you do 
not obey it. The reason is not because you ever 
have obeyed it ; it is not because anybody ever 
obeyed it for you. It is simply because somebody 
once did something else to you. Is that obedience 
on your part, or is it excuse for not obeying ? 

Another says, " I do not obey the command, ' Be 
baptized,' because I have obeyed it once, and no 
more is desired of me." How did you obey it ? By 
being baptized in your infancy ? " No ; that was no 
obedience, for I did nothing then myself. But since 
then I have adopted that unconscious act as my own, 
and this is my obedience." Yes, but there was no act 



I48 THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 

of your own, conscious or unconscious, that you could 
afterward adopt. You did nothing whatever capable 
of being adopted as obedience to the command, " Be 
baptized." So far as the baptism was concerned, you 
were simply acted upon. The only act conceivable as 
having then been done by you toward being baptized 
would be the inward resolution to be baptized. But 
this act of resolution you were not equal to, and this 
act, therefore, never existed. You have nothing that 
you can adopt. " Well, I deliberately, at one time, 
decided to regard that transaction as my baptism, and 
act accordingly." Yes, and if " Be baptized " could 
fairly be interpreted to mean, " Regard a certain 
transaction as baptism," why then you could claim 
thus to have obeyed the command. But Christ does 
not say, " Regard something as baptism ;" he says, 
" Be baptized." You do not obey. Instead of that, 
you tell me of a substitute for obedience. 

Another says — and I am able to use here the actual 
expression of a Psedobaptist writer, not hazarded in 
conversation, but deliberately committed to editorial 
print — " I accept my parents' act of baptism. Thus 
I suppose myself to have obeyed." You accept your 
parents' act of baptism, and that acceptance you count 
as your obedience. Let us see. What was your 
"parents' act of baptism"? Their "act of baptism" 
was having you baptized ; that, and nothing else, was 
your " parents' act of baptism." This act of your 
parents in having you baptized you now accept. 
What do you mean by "accepting" that act? Do 
you mean regarding it as your own act ? If you do, 



THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 1 49 

you have performed a feat of intellectual sleight-of- 
hand indeed. You regard what your parents did as 
something that you did. But let this be supposed 
accomplished; still, how is this obedience to the 
command, " Be baptized " ? Your parents did not 
obey that command in having you baptized. The 
command they obeyed, if any, was one running, " Have 
this child baptized." If, then, they in their act of bap- 
tism did not obey the command, " Be baptized," how 
can you suppose yourself to have obeyed that com- 
mand in "accepting" their act? Does your "accept- 
ing " of their act put into their act what was not in it 
before your accepting of it ? What ingenious futility 
in framing excuses for not obeying ! Obedience would 
be very much easier, and much more fruitful ! 

Another says, " ' Be baptized ' may mean, ' Be in 
the condition of having once been baptized;' or it 
may mean ' Submit yourself to baptism.' I do not 
care to decide between the two." That is, Christ has 
told you to do either one or the other of two things, 
but you do not care which ! Is this unconcern on 
your part consistent with a " tender desire to do your 
Lord's will " ? Is not your unconcern perhaps your 
excuse for not obeying, offered in place of obedience ? 

Another says, " Christ never bade, ' Be baptized/ 
Those are Peter's words, and Peter is not Christ." 
That such an excuse for not obeying is one sometimes 
really advanced the following recital will show. I 
quote from a letter received some time since. The 
occasion of the letter was a newspaper article, then 
recently published, in which this same view of obedi- 

13* 



150 THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 

ence was urged. The incident will serve to make two 
things plain : first, that there are sensitive consciences 
among our Paedobaptist brethren ; and, second, that 
these sensitive consciences are hard put to it to quiet 
themselves with excuses in place of obedience : 

" In conversation yesterday with the Rev. Mr. , 

pastor of the Street Congregational Church (and 

one of the most acute minds in the ministry here), 
reference was made to that article on ' Obedience and 
the Spirit of Obedience.' In reply to my question, 
' How do you meet a thing of that kind ?' he replied, 
' When I first read that I fairly turned white ; I thought 
he had us sure. It disturbed me. / got no sleep that 
night. I read it again the next day, and I said, Surely 
there must be some zvay out of this. So I read it the 
third time. Then I saw its fallacy. It is this : he lays 
down his premises in commandments ', but cunningly pro- 
ceeds to draw his conclusion from ordinances! I denied 
the reality of his discovery, and added, ' But suppose 
you are correct, what follows ? Is there any real dis- 
tinction between a commandment and an ordinance ?' 
His reply was to the effect that 'Christ gave the com- 
mandments, but the apostles gave the ordinances ; that 
the words of the latter do not carry the same force 
and authority as the former ; that Jesus nowhere com- 
manded anybody to be baptized: only the apostles 
did that.'" 

That Jesus transferred the whole of his authority to 
his apostles in such a sense as to make their inspired 
teachings equally binding with his own is a principle 
without which the Christian church could not exist. 



THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 151 

When Peter speaks under inspiration, as on the day of 
Pentecost, it is Christ speaking rather than Peter. 

Still another says, " Baptism is an unimportant mat- 
ter. Literalism in obeying is ritualism." Then you 
do not think it necessary to obey the command, " Be 
baptized," and that is your reason for not obeying? 
" Oh, but I do obey ; only I do not mind to obey ex- 
actly. The spirit is everything. If I have the spirit 
of obedience, that is obeying." Do I understand, then, 
that you meet Christ saying to you, " Be baptized," 
and, replying to him in effect, "Yes, Lord, I have the 
spirit of being baptized," and rest content with that? 
" Well, no, not exactly so. I do something that I call 
being baptized ; but whether it really is being baptized, 
I do not concern myself to inquire. It is the spirit of 
the rite, not the rite itself, that is important." Just 
what do you mean by the spirit of the rite ? Has the 
rite a spirit apart from you that perform the rite ? 
" Suppose I say, ' Yes, it has,' what then ?" Why, 
then, I shall ask you, " How can we be sure that we 
retain the spirit of the rite unless we retain the rite 
itself?" If the whole rite disappears, the whole spirit 
of the rite disappears with it, I suppose. But may a 
part of the rite go, and the whole of the spirit of the 
rite stay ? " Well, suppose now I say, ' No ; the spirit 
of the rite is nothing, but the spirit of me that perform 
the rite is everything,' then what ?" Why, then, this : 
If the rite is of no account, and your spirit is of all 
account, which I understand you to hold, pray where- 
fore perform the rite at all ? Have your spirit what it 
should be, and dismiss the rite altogether. It seems 



152 THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 

queer that a rite should be vital, and the rite be nothing 
at all in your eyes. 

My Baptist brethren, let us see to it that we do not, 
we also, in our different way, offer to our Lord excuses 
for not obeying instead of obedience. Frank, open, 
ready, intelligent, but child-like obedience, not in one 
thing alone, but in all things ; not in one thing chiefly, 
but in all things alike, — this is safety for us, this is joy 
to our Lord. May he herein see in us all the travail 
of his soul and be satisfied ! 



CHAPTER XVII. 
SOME CLASSICAL PROOF-TEXTS FOR INFANT BAPTISM. 

PROOF-TEXTS are texts cited in proof of a doc- 
trine that has already been decided upon and put 
into form. It is by no means always to be presumed 
that texts thus cited as proof-texts are the texts which 
originally furnished the doctrine that they are now 
brought forward to prove. Given a certain doctrine, 
little matter what the doctrine may be, it is almost an 
even chance that Scripture, properly ransacked, will be 
found to yield some text or texts capable of being ap- 
plied in plausible support of the doctrine. Proof-texts 
ought assuredly to be selected with the most scrupulous 
honesty, and with the most scrupulous solicitude to 
be honest, on the part of those who propose them ; 
at the same time, on the part of those to whom they 
are proposed there is not only permissible, but oblig- 
atory, a degree of vigilance amounting wellnigh to 
incredulity in scrutinizing the title that they bring to 
be considered, first pertinent, and then of convincing 
force. 

I enter upon the present examination of certain 
classical proof-texts for infant baptism with a remark 
which, I trust, though it may greatly surprise, or even 
scandalize, some, will not be taken by any as offen- 

153 



154 THE BAPTIST FT IXC/PL E. 

sively intended. I disclaim such intent when I say 
that among- all the texts of Scripture customarily 
cited to attest the doctrine or practice of infant bap- 
tism there is not a text — not one solitary text — that, 
supposing the doctrine or practice not already in the 
thought of the student, would ever have so much as 
suggested the idea of it, in the faintest suspicion, to 
his mind. Now. what is to be thought beforehand 
of a doctrine professing to be scriptural, the scriptural 
proof-texts for which are even' one of them such as 
not only not explicitly to state the doctrine, but not 
doubtfully to imply it — nay, not remotely to hint it 
with the smallest intelligible allusion ? Yet such I 
affirm in advance to be the character of all, without 
exception, of the proof-texts for infant baptism that 
are generally cited, or, further, that can be cited from 
any quarter whatever within the length and breadth 
of Divine Revelation. Let what I thus broadly affirm 
be strictly judged by the facts of the case now about 
to be exhibited. 

I take the citations from Scripture subjoined to the 
article on infant baptism in the Westminster Confes- 
sion of Faith. These are presumably the chief classic 
reliances of Paedobaptists for the defence of their tenet 
against Baptist objection. I propose, then, that we 
examine in succession all the proof-passages cited for 
infant baptism in this great historic symbol of faith. 

The first is Gen. xvii. 7, 9 in comparison with Gal. 
iii. 9, 14: 

" And I will establish my covenant between me and 
thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an 



THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 1 5 5 

everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee and to thy 
seed after thee. . . . And God said unto Abraham, 
Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, and 
thy seed after thee in their generations." 

" So then they which be of faith are blessed with 
faithful Abraham. . . . That the blessing of Abraham 
might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ ; 
that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through 
faith." 

Here we have — what ? Why, mention of a " cove- 
nant " between God, on the one side, and Abraham, 
with his " seed after " him, on the other. This in Gen- 
esis. In the Galatians a fact is stated as the conclusion 
of an argument. What fact ? The fact that the bless- 
ing promised to Abraham is a blessing made common 
also to others along with Abraham. To what others ? 
To " them which be of faith " — an expression obviously 
equivalent to saying, " to those who truly believe " as 
did believing Abraham. Now, of course, this is the 
inspired interpretation in Galatians of the word " seed " 
used in Genesis. Who, then, constitute the "seed" 
after Abraham with whom the " covenant " is estab- 
lished ? The answer — an unmistakable answer — is 
furnished in this passage of the Galatians with which 
we are invited by the Confession. to compare the pas- 
sage from Genesis. The " seed after " Abraham are 
those, Jew or Gentile, who exercise faith. Now, surely, 
that infant baptism is not present here in any smallest 
hint of the notion, it would be sufficient to say. Some- 
thing more, however, than this may pertinently be said. 
It may, for instance, be said that infant baptism is so 



156 THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 

far from being contained here by any valid though 
occult implication, that the just and the salient impli- 
cation of the passage absolutely forbids the very idea 
of it. For if baptism is to be considered a " sign " of 
the " covenant " mentioned, as such replacing circum- 
cision, then the new sign, baptism, should evidently, 
like the old sign, circumcision, be limited to those in- 
cluded within the covenant. Those included within the 
covenant Paul clearly states to be those that believe. 
Do infants believe ? 

The next passage cited in proof of infant baptism is 
Rom. iv. 11, 12 : 

" And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of 
the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being 
uncircumcised ; that he might be the father of all them 
that believe, though they be not circumcised ; that 
righteousness might be imputed unto them also ; and 
the father of circumcision to them who are not of the 
circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of 
that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being 
yet uncircumcised." 

What have we here ? Circumcision is spoken of as 
the " sign " of a faith on Abraham's part exercised by 
him before being circumcised. This sign, it is said, Abra- 
ham received after, not before, exercising faith (that point 
is made very emphatic) for a particular reason. What 
reason ? This : In order that he might so stand as father 
to Gentiles not less than to Jews, since Gentiles must 
needs exercise faith, if they exercise faith at all, without 
having been previously circumcised. In other words, 
if Abraham had, like his descendants, received circum- 



THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 1 57 

cision in advance of exercising faith, he would thereby 
have failed to be a true father of Gentile believers. 
But why would he thereby have thus failed ? Evi- 
dently, because these all were to be called upon to exer- 
cise faith before being admitted to membership in the 
spiritual Israel. Baptism before faith is thus impliedly 
excluded. If baptism is in any way a substitute for 
circumcision, the irresistible implication of the passage, 
then, is that baptism must be in the case of Gentiles, as 
circumcision was in Abraham's case, a sign of the faith 
that those receiving it must exercise yet being unbap- 
tized. The whole purport of the passage is to show 
that Gentiles as much as Jews are inheritors of the 
blessing promised to Abraham — that, in other words, 
the blessing follows, not the natural, but the spiritual, 
line of descent. Not those derived from the loins of 
Abraham, but those that walk in the steps of Abra- 
ham's faith, — these are Abraham's true children, and so 
joint-heirs with Abraham of the covenanted blessing. 
It is a sheer mistaking of this whole apostolic represen- 
tation — nay, a point-blank inversion of it — to conceive 
that children springing by natural descent from believers 
are by virtue of such descent promised the blessing of 
Abraham. But even if thus to conceive were as sound 
as, in fact, it is unsound, still to conceive further that 
therefore there is here any suggestion whatever of in- 
fant baptism is the purest gratuity. Baptism, in so far 
as it is the sign of a blessing at all, is the sign, not of 
a blessing that is yet to be received, but of a blessing 
that has been already received. Thus, too, in so far as 
baptism is the sign of faith, it is the sign, not of faith 

14 



158 THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 

to be exercised in the future, but, like circumcision 
in Abraham's case, of faith that has been exercised in 
the past. Such is the plain implication of what Paul 
says in the passage before us. 

The next proof-passage is Acts ii. 38, 39 : 
" Then Peter said unto them, Repent and be bap- 
tized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ 
for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift 
of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you, 
and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even 
as many as the Lord our God shall call." 

Here the promise — that is, the promise of the Holy 
Ghost — is said to be for the Israelites of Peter's day, 
together with their " children," and for as many be- 
sides these as may be " called!' The Greek word 
for "children" is one which has not the smallest ref- 
erence to the age, infant or adult, of the persons so 
designated. It simply means " posterity," " descend- 
ants." This is all that the word means ; but if the 
word meant infants, as it does not, and only infants, 
as yet more it does not, still the sense of the passage 
would be that the Holy Spirit was promised, on a 
certain condition, to infants. There would be in it no 
possible allusion to the practice of infant baptism un- 
less the allusion were to be found in the command, " Be 
baptized ;" which command, in that case, being ad- 
dressed in the second person to the subjects, would 
necessarily have to be obeyed by the subjects them- 
selves or not be obeyed at all. And then, as those 
same subjects are also commanded beforehand in the 
same breath to " Repent," it is to be supposed that 



THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 1 59 

obedience to the second command would be preceded 
by obedience to the first, whereby the infant baptism 
referred to would be baptism of infant believers, and 
thus not in the least the same practice with the infant 
baptism known to the ecclesiastical usage of to-day. 

The next proof-passage is Acts xvi. 14, 15 : 

" And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of 
purple, of the city of Thyatira, which worshipped 
God, heard us : whose heart the Lord opened, that 
she attended unto the things which were spoken of 
Paul. And when she was baptized, and her house- 
hold, she besought us, saying, If ye have judged me 
to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and 
abide there. And she constrained us." 

From this passage it appears that at Philippi, Lydia, 
an itinerant vender of purple from Thyatira, was con- 
verted and baptized. Her household were baptized 
with her ; hence infant baptism ! Consider the as- 
sumptions which this Paedobaptist inference implies : 
it implies the assumption, first, that Lydia was a 
mother ; second, that she was at that time the mother 
of at least one infant ; third t that this infant was with 
her while she sojourned in Philippi ; fourth, that the 
infant was baptized. Besides, if this passage teaches 
that an infant was baptized in virtue of Lydia's faith, 
it just as much teaches that the adult members of 
Lydia's household were baptized on the same ground. 

With the foregoing passage is to be associated an- 
other, likewise cited in the Westminster Confession — 
namely, the account, occurring in the same chapter, 
of the baptism of the jailer's household : 



l6o THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 

" And he took them the same hour of the night, 
and washed their stripes ; and was baptized, he and 
all his, straightway." 

The verse preceding this states that to the jailer 
and " to all that were in his house" "the word of the 
Lord" was spoken. The verse following states that 
the jailer " rejoiced, believing in God with all his 
house." The jailer and all that were in his house 
were preached to, the jailer and all his house rejoiced, 
believing, the jailer and all his house were baptized ; 
hence infant baptism ! Well, Baptists are ready, 
always and everywhere, to baptize infants that may 
be preached to, and that, having been baptized, re- 
joice, believing. That kind of infant baptism they 
highly approve. The more of it the better. 

The next proof-passage is Col. ii. 1 1, 12 : 

" In whom also ye are circumcised with the circum- 
cision made without hands, in putting off the body of 
the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ, 
buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen 
with him through the faith of the operation of God, 
who hath raised him from the dead." 

Hence infant baptism ! An exclamation-point is 
really all the comment that such a citation requires. 

The next proof-text is 1 Cor. vii. 14 : 

" For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the 
wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the hus- 
band : else were your children unclean ; but now are 
they holy. 

Here it is said that in some sense a heathen husband 
is " sanctified," or made holy (the Greek for " sancti- 



THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. l6l 

fied" is one and the same in root with the Greek for 
"holy"), by the Christian wife, while likewise the 
heathen wife is made holy in some sense by the Chris- 
tian husband ; for which reason the offspring too, 
otherwise unclean, are " holy ;" hence infant baptism ! 
Again, nothing else could be so appropriate a com- 
ment as mere punctuation on an inference like this. 
Do not Paedobaptists see that if the " holiness " here 
said to attach, under certain circumstances, to children 
entitles those children to baptism, the same " holiness," 
said equally to attach, under like circumstances, to the 
heathen husband or wife, entitles that heathen husband 
or wife also to baptism ? If infant baptism is here, 
then a good deal more than infant baptism is here — 
a good deal more that no earnest Paedobaptist would 
desire to find. 

The next proof-text is Matt, xxviii. 19 : 
" Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing 
them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and 
of the Holy Ghost." 

Christ says, Make all the nations disciples, baptizing 
them — that is, the disciples. Hence baptize infants 
before you make them disciples ! For a fuller treat- 
ment of this text the reader is referred to Chapters 
VIII. and IX. 

The next proof-passage is Mark x. 13-16: 
"And they brought young children to him, that he 
should touch them : and his disciples rebuked those 
that brought them. But when Jesus saw it, he was 
much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer the little 
children to come unto me, and forbid them not : for 
14* L 



1 62 THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 

of such is the kingdom of God. Verily I say unto 
you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God 
as a little child, he shall not enter therein. And he 
took them up in his arms, put his hands upon them, 
and blessed them." 

Here an occasion is described on which, if ever it 
was to occur, the Saviour would baptize infants. He 
does not do so, he does not command to do so, he does 
not say anything whatever about such a thing ; hence 
infant baptism ! Luke xviii. 15-17 is a similar account, 
of which a similar remark may be made. And so closes 
the whole presentation of the scriptural case for infant 
baptism as it is set forth in the Westminster Confession 
of Faith. 

The writers on rhetoric warn us that there is such a 
thing as refuting excessively. We may, they tell us, 
go so far in destroying the arguments of our adversa- 
ries that our adversaries will be rather vexed than per- 
suaded. I feel that Baptists, arguing with Paedobap- 
tists, are constantly in danger of committing this rhe- 
torical blunder. People generally are not fond of ad- 
mitting that they have really no good reason whatever 
for their beliefs. But, then, if infant baptism is wholly 
non-scriptural, as Baptists firmly maintain it to be, why 
is it strange that Scripture should contain not simply 
not much, but absolutely not a shred, of evidence in 
its favor? Not one shred of evidence in a case in 
which, since certainly the question concerns a very 
important matter alike of faith and of practice, there 
should, if infant baptism is truly scriptural, be found 
to be an ample web of evidence from Scripture — a web 



THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 1 63 

woven both close and strong. We have an obvious 
dilemma. Either infant baptism is scriptural or it is 
not. If it is not, then Scripture, of course, should 
know nothing of it. And can any candid and intelli- 
gent Paedobaptist consider well the case for it, thus 
presented in the classical proof-texts of the Westmin- 
ster Confession, and, laying his hand on his heart, say 
that he should ever so much as have thought of infant 
baptism from reading these texts if infant baptism had 
not been previously in his mind ? 

The thoughtful ponderer of these proof-texts will 
of course perceive that there was in the mind of those 
who prepared them the underlying idea of a relation 
between circumcision and infant baptism such that the 
latter supersedes or replaces the former. The relation 
between circumcision and infant baptism I elsewhere 
consider sufficiently at large under the title of " Scrip- 
tural Infant Baptism." Here, however, I have a sim- 
ple suggestion to make bearing on the same point. 
Let me ask Psedobaptists this question : Suppose it es- 
tablished and granted that there is indeed a well-war- 
ranted rite of infant baptism designed to take the place 
of circumcision ; still, how does it follow thence that 
infant baptism should take the place of baptism sub- 
sequently received on personal profession of faith ? 
Circumcision certainly did not do this. Why, then, 
should infant baptism do it, if it merely takes the place 
of circumcision, as antitype of type ? 



CHAPTER XVIII. 

ARCHBISHOP WHATELY'S OBITER DICTUM ON 
INFANT BAPTISM. 

ARCHBISHOP WHATELY'S Rhetoric, like every- 
thing else from the pen of that eminently sensible 
writer, is full of just and sound and wise suggestion. 
The things that are said as if incidentally and by the 
way, the obiter dicta, are often not less valuable than 
the things that belong to the main drift of discussion. 
It is one of the most salient characteristics of this 
book that the illustrations are generally much more 
than illustrations. The didactic bent of the author is 
a gravely moral didactic bent; and if he gives an 
example of a certain species of argument, he is very 
apt to make his example teach some independent 
practical lesson of its own. The opinions of the 
writer on a great variety of topics are thus put into 
the possession of the reader. 

A curious case of characteristic illustration, in 
which the clergyman of the Church of England 
qualifies the author of a treatise on rhetoric, occurs 
on pages 144-45 °f the American (New York) 
edition. The Archbishop (and it seems doubly nat- 
ural and fit to name him such in the present con- 
nection) is engaged with discussing the topic of the 

164 



THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 1 65 

burden of proof. He seeks to show how desirable it 
is for the person arguing not to undertake the bur- 
den of establishing a point which it does not fairly 
belong to him to establish. The following is one of 
his examples : 

" The burden of proof, again, lay on the authors of 
the Reformation : they were bound to show cause for 
every change they advocated ; and they admitted the 
fairness of this requisition and accepted the challenge. 
But they were not bound to show cause for retaining 
what they left unaltered. [It is a weakness of this 
strong writer to be fond of his italics.] The pre- 
sumption was, in these points, on their side ; and 
they had only to reply to objections. This important 
distinction is often lost sight of by those who look at 
the doctrines, etc. of the Church of England, as con- 
stituted at the Reformation, in the mass, without dis- 
tinguishing the altered from the unaltered parts. The 
framers of the Articles kept this in mind in their ex- 
pression respecting infant baptism, that it ought by all 
means to be retained. They did not introduce the 
practice, but left it as they found it, considering the 
burden to lie on those who denied its existence in 
the primitive church to show when it did arise." 

The Archbishop here — and the guess seems con- 
firmed by the fact that this passage is matter added 
by the author to his treatise after his ecclesiastical 
promotion, — the Archbishop here, I cannot but think, 
was a little too much for the logician. If it should be 
conceded that there was a burden of proof resting 
fairly on Baptist reformers to show that infant bap- 



1 66 THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 

tism did not originate in New-Testament times, this, 
I think, would overpass the utmost limit of conces- 
sion logically incumbent on them to make ; but to 
show when it did originate — that, surely, would be 
a transparently absurd burden of proof for them to 
have assumed. Nearly (not quite) parallel would it be 
for a Christian apologist, denying the right of Jupiter 
to divine worship, to assume the task of showing when 
the worship of Jupiter, if it was not coeval with the 
creation of man, did originate. In truth, however, 
the Archbishop would almost seem to have seduced 
the logician to forget the general principle that the 
burden of proof properly belongs always to him who 
affirms. At all events, the idea that the exact histor- 
ical moment of the origin of infant baptism must be 
ascertained by the opponents of that practice before 
the unscripturalness of it can be established is a 
monstrous assumption. Even the idea that it log- 
ically belonged to the Reformers to bring positive 
argument against any practice of the Roman Cath- 
olic Church in order to show that practice unscript- 
ural is not to be admitted. Such an idea rests upon 
the assumption that, independent of other proof, the 
mere existence of a Roman Catholic ecclesiastical 
usage affords presumptive evidence that the usage 
is scriptural. This assumption will not stand for one 
moment. It would have more plausibility if it were 
true that the Roman Catholic Church claimed to be 
exclusively scriptural in doctrine and usage. There 
would then be the probability in its favor arising from 
ostensible general consent. The fact, however, is that 



THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 1 67 

the Roman Catholic Church makes tradition of co- 
ordinate authority with Scripture; so that not even 
to the loyal child of the church does a presumption 
exist that a given ecclesiastical usage is scriptural. 
Where the question is not one of Scripture at all — 
where, on the contrary, it is simply a question of 
expediency — there, I readily grant, it might rest on 
the man who opposes what exists — that is, it might 
rest on him as practically necessary, though by no 
means as logically necessary — to show cause why it 
should not exist. Quite otherwise is it in a case like 
that of infant baptism. To say that simply because 
infant baptism is a usage of the Roman Catholic 
Church therefore it is probably a scriptural usage 
— this it would perhaps do for a bishop to preach in 
the discharge of his episcopal functions, but it will 
hardly do for a logician to assert in a treatise on 
rhetoric. I mean, of course, that in a sermon ad- 
dressed to hearers like-minded with the preacher 
such a point would probably pass without chal- 
lenge ; but a challenge sooner or later it must in- 
evitably meet occurring in a formal text-book of 
science. The only sound principle in a question 
like this is to maintain that logically, on every 
usage claiming to be scriptural, the burden of 
proof for ever lies to show itself scriptural. Let 
infant baptism accept its proper burden and bear 
the burden if it can. 

I cite Whately against Whately — Whately the Prot- 
estant against Whately the Paedobaptist unconscious- 
ly disguising himself from himself in the mask of a 



1 68 THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 

teacher of rhetoric. In his treatise on Corruptions of 
Christianity (p. 143, American edition) Whately adopts 
from Bishop Hurd's Rise and Progress of Christianity 
the following just sentiments, which, had they been 
opportunely present to the Archbishop's mind at the 
proper moment, might have exerted a happy influence 
in modifying his curious obiter dictum on infant bap- 
tism : 

" It might seem at first that the apostolic precedents 
were literally binding on all ages ; but this cannot have 
been intended ; and for this reason, that the greater 
portion of the apostolical practices have been trans- 
mitted to us, not on apostolical authority, but on the 
authority of the uninspired church, which has handed 
them down with an uncertain mixture of its own 
appointments. How are we to know the enactments 
of the inspired rulers from the uninspired?" The Ital- 
ics are my own. 

Whately advances to other examples illustrative 
of the topic of the burden of proof. In doing so he 
proposes — or seems to propose, for this painstakingly 
perspicuous writer becomes here discomposingly vague 
— a distinction between usage and doctrine as to the 
proper place for the burden of proof. The usage 
would appear, according to him, to be its own evi- 
dence, while the doctrine must bring evidence for 
itself from Scripture. "The hit presumption** is, he 
says, that all "doctrines" "professing to be essential 
parts of the gospel revelation " will be found " dis- 
tinctly declared in Scripture." " If any one main- 
tains," Whately continues, " on the ground of tradi- 



THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 1 69 

tion, the necessity of some additional article of faith 
(as, for instance, that of purgatory) or the propriety 
of a departure from the New-Testament precepts (as, 
for instance, in the denial of the cup to the laity in 
the Eucharist), the burden of proof lies with him. 
We are not called on to prove that there is no tradi- 
tion to the purpose — much less that no tradition can 
have any weight at all in any case." 

The Protestant Archbishop overlies once more the 
logical writer on rhetoric. Surely, if infant baptism is 
a usage, the Lord's Supper in one kind is a usage no 
less. It is hard to see how in the case of infant bap- 
tism the burden of proof lies on one side, while in the 
case of the Supper in one kind the burden of proof 
lies on the other. Whately seems to imply that the 
Supper in one kind transgresses a precept — I suppose, 
the precept, " Drink ye all of it." But is that precept 
any more distinct and specific than the precept, " Be 
every one of you baptized," addressed as a command 
to those capable of rendering obedience ? Yet infant 
baptism as a usage prevents the compliance of believ- 
ers with a definite precept of Christ's as much as does 
denial of wine to the laity. For those who are bap- 
tized in infancy, although they do not in being so bap- 
tized obey any command, are practically prevented 
from subsequent obedience by the usage of infant 
baptism ; which usage, be it observed, includes not 
simply the act itself, but also the superseding of any 
fulfilment whatever of the command undertaken vol- 
untarily on the part of the believer. 

Besides, the distinction attempted to be established 

15 



I/O THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 

by Whately between usage and doctrine as to the 
methods of proof severally applicable is a vicious 
distinction. Each ecclesiastical usage has a doctrine 
connected with it. In truth, the usage is itself a doc- 
trine expressed in act or symbol. 

The matter is capable of being presented in a dif- 
ferent way. Whately commends the decision of the 
framers of the Articles as to infant baptism — their de- 
cision to the effect that it ought to be retained. Now, 
why ought it to be retained ? Because it had existed 
previously. But of course not for that bare reason. 
No ; for the reason implied in that reason, namely — 
Well, what? How would Whately express himself? 
It seems doubtful, his language not being quite clear. 
Would he say, " Infant baptism ought to be retained, 
because the fact that it existed raised a presumption 
that it was scriptural " ? Hardly ; for the practice of 
the Roman Catholic Church did not profess to be 
scriptural exclusively, and therefore, so far was the 
existence of a practice from proving that the practice 
was scriptural, the existence of it did not even prove 
that anybody thought it was scriptural. Would he 
say, " Infant baptism ought to be retained, because the 
fact that it existed raised a presumption that it was, 
though not scriptural, still coeval with the origin of 
the Christian church"? That, then, makes tradition 
co-ordinate with Scripture in authority, which sur- 
renders at once the whole Protestant principle. 

The presumption from the existence of the practice, 
accordingly, is not necessarily either that infant baptism 
is scriptural or that Rome conceived it to be scriptural ; 



THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 171 

it is not even that infant baptism is coeval with Chris- 
tianity. It is simply that Rome chose to define it as 
being so. The presumption supposed by Whately 
practically vanishes altogether, and the opposite pre- 
sumption rather obtains. 

If we were disposed to push the argumentum ad 
hominem against Whately, we might say with reference 
to infant baptism what he says with reference to purga- 
tory and the Lord's Supper in one kind : " It is for him 
to prove, not merely generally that there is such a 
thing as tradition [for Whately apparently gives up 
proof from Scripture in favor of infant baptism, and 
virtually relies on tradition] and that it is entitled to 
respect, but that there is a tradition relative to each of 
the points which he thus maintains, and that such tra- 
dition is on each point sufficient to establish that point." 

I propose a dilemma. Either the presumption con- 
ceived by Whately to lie in favor of infant baptism on 
account of the existence of the practice at the time of 
the Reformation, — either this presumption is a real pre- 
sumption, a sound logical one, one that belongs to the 
reason of the case, or else it is a merely relative pre- 
sumption, having its support in the opinions of a class 
of people, and therefore well or ill founded according 
as their opinions are wise or unwise. In the latter al- 
ternative the presumption is not a logical, but only a 
practical, presumption ; not one that the opponents of 
the practice are bound to meet, but only one that, as to 
a class of people, they will find it desirable to meet if 
they wish to convince that class. Either, then, the 
presumption is absolute, sound in itself, warranted by 



172 THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 

reason, or it is relative, existing merely in the prejudice 
of sense, a subjective presumption. Which is it ? 

Let us suppose the former — an inherently valid pre- 
sumption. But now just what is this presumption, sup- 
posed to be valid ? Here we are left in necessary 
doubt, for Whately's language is vague. First, it seems 
the presumption that infant baptism is, indefinitely, a 
thing that " ought to be retained " — retained, but why 
retained does not clearly appear. Next, it seems that 
infant baptism, is, more definitely, " coeval with the 
primitive church" — this as distinguished from being 
scriptural. As we advance and tradition is impliedly set 
aside by the writer, the presumption finally seems to 
be that infant baptism is scriptural. 

It is really difficult to argue with a writer who ex- 
presses himself so loosely as Whately surprises us by 
doing in this place. For instance, closely consider 
what he says in the following sentence : " In the case 
of any doctrines, again [as if infant baptism were not a 
doctrine as well as a practice !], professing to be essen- 
tial parts of the gospel revelation, the fair presumption 
is that we shall find all such [that is, all such as profess 
to be essential parts of the gospel revelation] distinctly 
declared in Scripture." Understood strictly, this is a 
ridiculous assertion. I use the adjective deliberately : 
it is simply a ridiculous assertion. For what does it 
say ? It says that any doctrine claiming to be an es- 
sential part of gospel revelation is, ipso facto — that is, 
solely by virtue of its own claim for itself — to be pre- 
sumed scriptural. Simply because a doctrine makes 
the pretension the presumption is that the pretension 



THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 1 73 

is true ! This is what Whately says, but it is, of 
course, not what Whately means. He means that a 
doctrine professing to be a part of gospel revelation, if 
it be really such, will presumably be found plainly stated 
in Scripture — a very good meaning, however ill ex- 
pressed, and applicable to the doctrine underlying the 
practice of infant baptism. 

But we were trying to examine the validity of 
Whately 's presumption in favor of infant baptism. We 
find this difficult to accomplish, because it is difficult 
to ascertain what the presumption is whose validity we 
are testing. 

If the presumption be this, that infant baptism ought 
to be retained simply because it exists, then the same 
presumption holds in favor of retaining the whole sys- 
tem of Romanism, since that also exists. But as soon 
as we begin to reform a system we abandon the pre- 
sumption in favor of that system ; we challenge the 
whole system to show cause for its continuing to be. 
To us, at least, who assume to reform the system, no 
presumption lies in favor of the system : it is under 
judgment. To us it stands or falls, part by part, as 
part by part it can demonstrate or not its title to be. 
Practically, it may be convenient and wise to let stand 
what we do not see reason to overthrow ; but logically, 
when once we have begun to reform, to us there is no 
longer presumption in favor of retaining. If Whate- 
ly's presumption, therefore, be that infant baptism 
should go on existing, simply because it exists, the 
presumption is not sound — at least, such seems to be 
the common sense of the matter. But, however this 

15* 



174 THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 

may be decided, it still is quite wide of any right 
course of discussion on a point like infant baptism 
seriously to go through the process of weighing the 
presumption that a thing ought to go on being, merely 
because it is found being. We may well enough grant 
that, even in ecclesiastical matters, some things should 
exist which are not distinctly set forth in Scripture ; 
but such things must not claim to be scriptural, and 
they must not claim to be divinely ordained in any 
other than that general sense in which all things desi- 
rable are a part of divine providence. If the presump- 
tion, therefore, be that infant baptism ought to exist 
purely because it has existed and does exist, I chal- 
lenge even that presumption, but waive my challenge 
and say that in such a discussion as the present the 
presumption is impertinent and null. " Has infant bap- 
tism special divine authority in its favor ?" is the ques- 
tion. That question the presumption alluded to does 
not even touch. 

What would touch it is a presumption that infant 
baptism is scriptural, which we have seen to be an un- 
sound presumption. What would touch it is, again, a 
presumption that infant baptism, though not scriptural, 
is yet of apostolic institution. This presumption de- 
pends upon history, or, in default of history, on tradi- 
tion. There is no history ; and tradition, if there were 
that, is not to be trusted. 

We go, accordingly, to the other horn of our dilem- 
ma. The presumption, whatever the presumption be 
guessed to be, is not a presumption valid in logic. It 
must therefore be, if it exist at all in any sense, merely 



THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 1 75 

a relative presumption, which in plain language we had 
better call by the name of what it is — a prejudice. The 
presumption in favor of infant baptism is thus simply 
a prejudice existing in men's minds. In what men's 
minds ? Why, of course, in the minds of those men 
who approve infant baptism. But those men will raise 
no " objections " to the practice. The " objections " to be 
" replied " to, which Whately's language represents him 
as conceiving to arise, will proceed from those who do 
not approve, but oppose, infant baptism ; who, there- 
fore, have no prejudice or presumption in favor of the 
practice. The prejudice, accordingly, or presumption — 
call it by whichever name you will — is absolutely with- 
out aggressive argumentative force. It cannot be ap- 
pealed to in the course of controversial discussion, for 
the very good reason that it has no existence in the 
minds of those against whom the argument is con- 
ducted. Such a presumption has nothing whatever to 
do with the matter of burden of proof. The true 
place of the burden of proof cannot be determined by 
it, since it is itself a purely relative and subjective thing, 
never for a moment even existing where it is once can- 
didly denied to exist. 

If the Paedobaptist and the anti-Paedobaptist meet 
for discussion of Paedobaptism, each seeking to make 
a convert of the other, evidently the proper course for 
either to pursue would be this : Abandoning any and 
every presumption that exists only for himself, to try 
conclusions quite as if such presumption were out of 
the question. The Paedobaptist, on the one part, would 
know that, unless he could bring positive argument to 



1 76 THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 

establish his view, his antagonist would, ostrich-like, 
plunge his head deep in the sand of his cherished im- 
aginary presumption and successfully resist contrary 
conviction ; while, on the other part, the anti-Paedo- 
baptist would, in default of positive confutation, hold 
out for his opinion despite any presumption existing 
in his adversary's mind which he himself did not ac- 
knowledge to be real and sound. This merely relative 
presumption, existing for only one side in the dispute, 
in itself a pure prejudice, justified or not according to 
the reason on which it rests — a reason to be canvassed 
freely as if there were no foreclosing consideration in 
the case, — such a prepossession, I say, self-evidently, 
has no force to devolve the burden of proof either this 
way or that. A counterpoising presumption may al- 
ways conceivably be adduced. If, for instance, the 
Paedobaptist says, " I presume that infant baptism 
ought to stand, because it is a part of Roman Catho- 
licism," the anti-Paedobaptist may reply, "/ presume — 
and for the same reason — that it ought not to stand." 
Here are two presumptions opposing each other, pre- 
sumably of equal validity. Let them destroy each 
other and leave the burden of proof unaffected. 

The burden of proof in every case is assumed by 
that party, whichever it is, who begins the discussion 
with affirming his view. If he is able on challenge to 
appeal to a consideration which creates a presumption, 
admittedly valid, in his favor, then that appeal instant- 
ly shifts the burden of proof to the contrary side. If 
the contrary side is able to adduce a consideration out- 
weighing this first presumption, then the burden of 



THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. If? 

proof returns to its original place. It continues ex- 
changing its place to the end of the argument. If at 
the end the affirmer shall appear to have advanced an 
argument not answered by his opponent, then the af- 
firmer has prevailed. If, on the other hand, every ar- 
gument advanced by the affirmer has been satisfacto- 
rily answered, then the burden of proof rests still with 
him. He must lift it and shift it, or he has been beaten. 
It is enough always to resist mere affirmation with mere 
denial. One man's " No " is to be supposed as good 
as another man's " Yes." The affirmer must meet a 
challenge of his affirmation with proffer of proof; the 
burden of proving belongs to him. If he can begin 
by pointing to a presumption in his favor, he has done 
all that in the first instance can logically be demanded. 
The slightest argument, presumption or other, advanced 
by him shifts the burden of proof to the side of him 
who denies. The burden of proof, I say, lies with the 
affirmer ; but this is not in the least because there is 
some presumption capable of being alleged against 
him. The burden of proof lies with the affirmer sim- 
ply because he affirms. The simple truth is, Whately 
was too much a sectary to be a logician when he was 
using the present illustration. His practical interest 
always did predominate over his speculative. This 
disposition of his mind saved him from many errors, 
but it at the same time involved him in some. 

It is a great thing to escape the effect of environ- 
ment. Few — none, perhaps — do this. We have to 
watch ourselves constantly, and we have to watch 
others, or what is mere unconscious prejudice will 

M 



178 THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 

again and again impose itself on us for right reason 
and logic. Paedobaptism is not necessarily out of place 
even in a treatise on rhetoric ; but lame logic is out of 
place wherever it hobbles. 



CHAPTER XIX. 

HOW INFANT BAPTISM PREPARED FOR THE PAPACY. 

THE Baptist depends on the Bible, and not on 
history — or, if on history, then only on the his- 
tory contained in the Bible — for the peculiar views 
which he holds in distinction from the Paedobaptist. 
Still, extra-biblical history — that is, history outside 
of the Bible — he also finds full of confirmatory in- 
struction on his distinguishing tenets. He does not 
look primarily to any consequences of disobedience 
to Christ to teach him either the duty or the import- 
ance of obedience. That such obedience is a duty, 
and that the duty is important, are points to him suf- 
ficiently plain from the Bible. The importance, how- 
ever, of the duty of obeying Christ — the importance, 
observe, of the duty, not the duty itself — he recog- 
nizes as yet further most impressively illustrated by 
the teachings of history respecting the consequences 
of disobedience. 

Take, for example, the matter of infant baptism. 
Whether infant baptism obeys Christ or not is a 
question which can be answered only from Scrip- 
ture ; whether that question itself is highly important 
or not is a point which can well be illustrated from 
history. If it should turn out that but for infant bap- 

179 



l8o THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 

tism the Papacy could never have arisen, this indeed 
would not prove that infant baptism was unscriptural. 
For it is also true that but for Christianity the Papacy 
could not have arisen ; and certainly Christianity is 
scriptural. But it emphatically would prove that 
infant baptism, if it is a deviation from Scripture, is 
a deviation from Scripture of very considerable mo- 
ment. 

Now, precisely this, I suppose, can be demonstrated 
— namely, that infant baptism was indeed a condition 
without which the Papacy could not have been devel- 
oped. Mark, if you please, I do not affirm that infant 
baptism was the producing cause of the Papacy. I 
affirm only, and this I undertake to demonstrate, that 
infant baptism, whether scriptural or not, was a neces- 
sary, an indispensable, precedent and concomitant con- 
dition of the development of the Papacy. I seek thus 
to show that the question of the scripturalness or un- 
scripturalness of infant baptism is not a question to be 
dismissed as of little practical importance. The question 
is of great practical importance; and those who support 
infant baptism assume a grave responsibility in doing 
so. On the other hand, Baptists who oppose infant 
baptism — or, rather, who maintain a principle of obe- 
dience to Christ inconsistent with infant baptism — have 
not taken their stand on behalf of a barren, however 
abstractly valid, principle. I believe it may be made 
to appear rationally probable that the simple accept- 
ance in good faith, and the consistent practice of, the 
Baptist principle of obedience to Christ, solely in its 
application to the matter of baptism, would have been 



THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. l8l 

by itself sufficient to render the development of the 
Papacy, with all the dreadful mischiefs incident to 
that system, historically impossible. 

Of course I do not mean that if, in addition to those 
other matters of commandment which actually did re- 
ceive the attention of the Christian world, the Baptist 
principle of obedience to Christ had been applied to 
the matter of baptism, that difference alone would 
have made the Christian world so much better that 
it would have escaped, as by its own enhanced and 
superior virtue, the corruptions of which I have 
spoken; I mean nothing so absurd as a claim like 
that would be. What I mean is, that with no more 
of the Christian spirit existing than really did exist, 
yet if that Christian spirit had taken the direction of 
obedience to Christ in the matter of baptism, this one 
additional circumstance of outward conformity alone, 
trifling though it may seem, is such, in its inevitable 
practical tendency, as, had it taken place, to have pre- 
cluded the possibility of the Papacy. Remember, I 
do not say that neglect to obey Christ in this one 
particular article of his will produced the Papacy. 
No ; that great corruption had a deeper root than 
this, or than any, specific act of disobedience. I do 
say, however, that without the specific act of disobe- 
dience which occurred in the matter of baptism the 
particular form of corruption which we call the 
Papacy could not have taken its rise. In short, Pae- 
dobaptism did not originate the Papacy, but Paedobap- 
tism made the Papacy possible. 

How ? In this way : The indiscriminate baptism 

16 



1 82 THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 

of infants — and of adults as well, without reference to 
their previous regeneration, which has been the Ro- 
man Catholic practice, justified by the same reasoning 
that justifies infant baptism — introduced a constantly 
increasing, and, of course, in the end a greatly pre- 
ponderating, element of unregenerate membership into 
the church. This nominally Christian, but essentially 
worldly and hostile, element in the church was not 
passive there ; on the contrary, it was self-asserting 
and active. Instinctively, habitually, intensely, it 
sought to serve itself. Its spirit was the spirit of the 
world and of the devil. It behaved itself after the 
fashion of its kind. It was ambitious, greedy, grasp- 
ing. It was always watching its chance for self- 
aggrandizement. The pure and spiritual portion of 
the church it outnumbered and outvoted. It had no 
scruples, and it could with corresponding advantage 
reach out its hand to clutch pre-eminence and power. 
As fast as, by the perfectly natural tendency of things, 
an hereditary succession to church-membership made 
the church gradually coincident and identical with so- 
ciety, so fast the various offices of the church became 
objects of ambition to unscrupulous self-seekers. The 
development of the Papacy, with all its attendant evils, 
was the result — and it was a perfectly legitimate, a 
simply natural, result — of such a state of things. 
That the originally spiritual church should change 
its character and become a vast temporal establish- 
ment was to have been expected. The secular spirit 
could not but secularize the church of which it had 
taken dominant 'possession. 



THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 183 

The point which I here make — that only through 
infant baptism, or through some equivalent perversion 
of the will of Christ, could the necessary condition 
have been supplied for the complete and permanent 
secularization of the church, and so for the develop- 
ment of a corruption like the Papacy — is a point cal- 
culated to strike the evangelical Paedobaptist with 
incredulity, with amazement, even with horror. It 
may be well to pause and reason the matter calmly 
and candidly. 

The Paedobaptist objector will be likely to ask, " Is 
not the world itself, in the midst of which the church 
has its present place of sojourn, — appointed still to be 
in it, though not of it, — is not this omnipresent, this 
unescapable, this penetrating, world a force without for 
secularization, a force incessantly operative? Is not 
this an external force strong enough to dispense with 
any reinforcement from a source within, such as you 
imagine infant baptism to be, in producing an historic 
effect like the Papacy ? Has not your polemic sectarian 
zeal in behalf of a favorite tenet led you to make, in 
short, the pregnant discovery of a very fine mare's 
nest? Surely we of this country and this age see 
enough right before our faces of the influence of the 
world in secularizing the church to teach us a wiser 
philosophy of history than what you are pro- 
pounding." 

Well, let us fairly consider the objection. The point, 
be it borne in mind, against which the objection is 
brought is this : The church, in order to be thoroughly 
and permanently secularized, must be operated upon by 



1 84 THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 

a secularizing force supplied from within itself and 
working within itself. Such a secularizing force is 
furnished in infant baptism, and could not be furnished 
in anything else than infant baptism or something of 
an equivalent nature. Against this the objection is 
brought that the world outside of the church is of 
itself a force adequate to produce the effect in 
question. 

I say, No. What is a secularized church ? It is a 
church in which the worldly spirit not merely exists, 
but is dominant. It is a church, therefore, in which 
the members are most of them worldly men. Now, 
what was there in the primitive church to tempt 
worldly men to join it? At first very little — some- 
thing, no doubt, for a few worldly men apparently did 
join it. Gradually, however, after a time, as the church 
gained common credit, worldly men would be attracted 
to join it in order to share this credit. Such a tendency 
of things we may any of us observe existing now. 
This tendency is, of course, a tendency toward secular- 
ization of the church. If, in any case, the tendency 
went forward indefinitely, the issue, of course, would 
be thorough secularization at last. But the tendency 
does not, in any case, go forward indefinitely ; it com- 
prehends always within itself a law of necessary, in- 
evitable, self-limitation. When the world has thus 
flowed into the church long enough and strong 
enough to bring down the general average reputa- 
tion of the church quite to equality with the world, 
the temptation to worldly men to join the church is 
then exhausted. One of two things now happens : 



THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 1 85 

either the church reforms itself, expelling the secular 
and secularizing element, or else the church succumbs 
and ceases to exist. Certain it is that a church de- 
pending on accessions from the world to continue its 
life will not have its life continued when accessions 
from the world cease ; and accessions from the world 
tempted by worldly motives — that is, accessions con- 
sisting of unregenerate persons, accessions composing 
the secularizing element — will no longer come to the 
church after worldly motives cease to draw them. The 
dilemma, therefore, is rigorous. The church will either 
cease to exist or cease to be secular. 

The argument thus seems complete and demon- 
strative — if an argument probable in its nature can ever 
be demonstrative — that Psedobaptism supplied a neces- 
sary condition of the Papacy. To show in sequel and 
complement how the Baptist principle of obedience to 
Christ applied to the matter of baptism would have 
worked to prevent this disastrous historic result will 
be the aim of the next chapter. 

16* 



CHAPTER XX. 

HOW BAPTIST PRACTICE WOULD HAVE PREVENTED 

THE PAPACY. 

WE have in the present chapter to consider how 
the Baptist principle of obedience to Christ in 
the matter of baptism would have operated in pre- 
vention of the Papacy. This Baptist principle is often 
misconceived. It should be steadily borne in mind 

- 

that not immersion for baptism, but baptism only to 
actual converts, is the real chief distinguishing tenet 
of Baptists. 

Under the prevalence of this principle none, of 
course, would have been baptized but supposed con- 
verts, voluntary candidates, professing belief and hon- 
estly desiring to yield obedience. The nominal church, 
both according to the Roman Catholic and according 
to the Baptist idea, properly consists of baptized per- 
sons, and only of such. The difference, however, is 
more serious than the resemblance. Rome baptizes 
without reference to precedent regeneration, while 
Baptists make precedent regeneration a condition of 
baptism. Under the dominance, therefore, of this 
Baptist idea, the nominal church would have con- 
sisted — not, indeed, exclusively, but always, it is to 
be presumed, preponderantly — of regenerate persons. 

186 



THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 1 87 

I speak now as it were in the gross, 'and in the lan- 
guage oi a Large generalization. Temporary excep- 
tions might conceivably occur — in a case, for example, 
like that oi' the conversion, so called, of Constant ine, 
or like that of the conventionally pious Louis XIV. 
pf France, Such influence would set a fashion of 
professing religion and tempt many not regenerate to 
make the religious profession ; but the fashion would 
be temporal}', for the influence would be temporary 
on which it depended. To produce a continuously and 
permanently secularized church there would be neces- 
sary two conditions — namely, first\ a secularizing in- 
fluence to operate permanently and continuously; and 
md y opportunity for this secularizing influence to 
operate from within, and not from without. A secu- 
larizing influence operating upon the church from with- 
out might, no doubt, succeed in secularizing the church 
for a time ; but not for an indefinitely long time, for the 
tendency of a secularization so effected would be to 
extinguish the church ; which result would be certain 
to ensue unless the church roused itself betimes to 
expel the secularizing influence. 1 therefore repeat 
again here what I said in a previous chapter: For the 
church to continue to exist, and at the same time con- 
tinue to be secularized, it was necessary that there should 
be a spring of secularizing influence supplied from with- 
in itself and working within itself. Such an internal 
spring of secularizing influences, flowing perennially, 
was furnished in the doctrine and practice of infant 
baptism. On the other hand, with the Baptist doc- 
trine and practice of obedience to Christ in force as 



I 88 THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 

to the matter of baptism, the church would scarcely 
at any moment — certainly for no great number of 
consecutive moments — have included within its com- 
munion a preponderant element of unregenerate souls. 
Some such souls, no doubt, it might often — perhaps 
would always — have included. The regenerate, too, 
would not have been perfectly sanctified, and so cor- 
ruptions would have found entrance into the church. 

But note now the difference between the case sup- 
posed and the case that actually existed. In the case 
supposed — that is, under the sway of Baptist principles 
applied to baptism — the corruptions entering would 
have been discovered by the vigilance and withstood 
by the fidelity of the spiritual majority. Besides, a 
church thus composed of the elect regenerate would 
never have tempted to any great degree the ambition 
or the cupidity of self-seeking men : there would 
always have abounded outside of such a church op- 
portunities of self-aggrandizement far more attractive 
than any to be found within it. A corruption like that 
of the Papacy would thus, in the case of a church true 
to the Baptist principle of obedience to Christ in the 
matter of baptism, have lacked two indispensable con- 
ditions of successful development — namely, first, op- 
portunity; and seco?id, temptation offered to ecclesias- 
tical usurpers. 

But even if these things were not as I have claimed, 
still it w r ould be true that such a church would have 
constantly been surrounded by a vastly outnumbering 
society of non-professors who would never have had 
any motive to submit to the despotism of ecclesiastical 



THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. I 89 

usurpers, or to suffer any such monstrous displays of 
corruption and pride as largely make up the history 
of the Papal See. Whatever usurpations of power 
might nevertheless have occurred, these would at least 
have been confined to a comparatively insignificant 
church for their theatre. The terrors of excommunica- 
tion would have been utterly null. There would have 
been no such thing attempted as spiritual discipline, 
enforced by temporal sanctions, over the consciences 
and lives of men. The whole dreadful incubus of ec- 
clesiastical superstition that rested for so many ages on 
the bosom of the nominal Christian Church, almost 
extinguishing the very breath of its life, would have 
been dissipated as fast as it could ever have begun to 
be formed. 

But to the course of argument immediately fore- 
going and to that presented in a previous chapter I 
hear the objection : All this is pure speculation. Give 
us facts, not theories. We want to learn, not what must 
happen on a priori principles, but what has happened 
as simple matter of history. 

This demand I acknowledge to be reasonable, and I 
reply : Instances in plenty exist of churches that have 
become secularized, and that, having become secular- 
ized, continue to be churches notwithstanding their 
secularization. The Roman Catholic Church is an in- 
stance ; the Greek Church is an instance ; the Lutheran 
Church of every country where the Lutheran Church 
is an establishment of state is an instance ; the New 
England churches such as Jonathan Edwards found 
them are instances. But in every one of these instances 



I90 THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 

the secularizing force was of the church itself, and was 
renewed within the church by infant baptism. 

I shift the burden of proof, and I ask objectors to 
my argument to produce an instance of the other kind 
— namely, an instance of a church that has become 
secularized (and that has continued afterward to be a 
church) through the working of a force exterior to the 
organization of the church itself. One such instance 
would be fatal to my argument. I know of none, but 
I freely expose myself to be confuted with an example. 

I cannot claim to be an authority in history, but, 
positively or negatively, history, I fully believe, would 
support the thesis that for a corruption like the Papacy 
infant baptism or some other equivalent device of man 
is an indispensably necessary condition ; this, for the 
reason, first, that the Papacy presupposes a secularized 
church continuing to exist indefinitely in a secularized 
condition; and second, that to produce such a church 
nothing is adequate except a secularizing force supplied 
from within itself and working within itself — a force, in 
short, like infant baptism. 

If such be indeed the teaching of history, then it is 
no wonder that reform within the church was always a 
foredoomed attempt. The entrance of corruption was 
ever by a wider door than that at which the purifying 
influence could find its way in. Nor, if the argument 
of this chapter be good, is it longer matter of just sur- 
prise that the Baptist churches should have been cha- 
racterized, everywhere and always, by such general 
soundness of doctrine? Thoughtful Paedobaptist ob- 
servers have been puzzled to account for the orthodoxy 



THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. I9I 

which Baptist churches have with such uniformity main- 
tained, and maintained in the absence of authoritative 
Councils, and even of authoritative standards of faith. 
The simple principle of obedience to Christ is the clew 
to the secret ; that principle in application to baptism 
alone tends to exclude the most dangerous force for 
corruption that ever can threaten the life or the doc- 
trine of a church. The exclusion is, of course, not 
perfect, but the tendency to exclude is, for Baptist 
churches, firmly fixed in the very law of their growth. 
Infant baptism, on the contrary, introduces into the 
very law of that church's growth which adopts it a 
force for degeneration. In the case of Paedobaptist 
churches having an exceptionally favorable environ- 
ment, especially — if I may deprecate the charge of as- 
sumption and frankly say the truth as I hold the truth 
to exist, especially, — in the case of Paedobaptist churches 
that feel the presence of a living and aggressive Bap- 
tist example and propagandism, the mischiefs of their 
mischievous principle are to a degree avoided. But 
the tendency inheres in the principle itself, and cannot 
be separated from it. We Christians are not out of 
the suck of the whirlpool of Rome until we adopt in 
the matter of baptism the principle of simple, straight- 
forward obedience to Christ. 

Remember, it was necessary, in order to the full de- 
velopment of the Papacy as that development took 
place in actual history, that the church should be nu- 
merically coincident and commensurate with civil so- 
ciety; in other words, that every member of society 
where the church existed should be also a member of 



192 THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 

the church. This state of things at least must have 
established itself to such an extent that the exceptions 
should be practically insignificant. But evidently there 
was no practicable way to this result — no way practi- 
cable and at the same time permanently efficacious — 
except to introduce every new-born member of civil 
society into membership with the church during the 
period of his infancy. The component members of 
civil society have no option to be members or not of 
civil society : the moment they are born into the air 
they breathe, that moment they are born into mem- 
bership of society. The church at length became as 
exacting as civil society ; she left no option to the in- 
dividual. By infant baptism she made every new-born 
child a member of her communion, and so a subject 
of her discipline. The child was born into the world 
and into the church at almost the selfsame moment. 
Birth into the church was accomplished in infant bap- 
tism ; once baptized, the child was thenceforth help- 
lessly a member of the church. It was not necessary 
that the baptism should be by proper sacerdotal hands. 
Baptism by whatsoever hand, in whatsoever mode, per- 
formed with the intent to baptize, and if with water 
enough, applied in the name of the Father, of the Son, 
and of the Holy Ghost, to trickle on the unconscious 
infant's face or brow, was baptism, accepted as valid 
for the purposes of the Roman Catholic Church. The 
baptized child was for ever after a child of the Catholic 
mother, and entitled to her care even to the extent, if 
he needed it, of the offices of the Holy Inquisition. 
Rome makes no pretension to authority over the un- 



THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 1 93 

baptized ; but over the baptized, wherever they are 
found, she holds her right of dominion and discipline. 
So close is the dependence of the Papacy upon infant 
baptism for its existence and .its power. 

In view of Scripture, and in view of history no less, 
the duty of Baptists is plain. For the sake of them- 
selves and their children ; for the sake of Paedobap- 
tists and their children ; for the sake of all men now 
and henceforth ; above all, for the sake of Christ, — let 
them stand fast and be strong in the name of the Lord ! 
17 N 



CHAPTER XXI. 

SCRIPTURAL INFANT BAPTISM. 

BAPTISTS oppose infant baptism, but they prac- 
tise infant baptism. Baptists do not, however, 
practise the infant baptism which they oppose. There 
is a practice of infant baptism which Baptists hold to 
be unscriptural ; this practice is the one now common 
among their Psedobaptist brethren. They oppose such 
a practice. But there is a certain different practice of 
infant baptism which Baptists hold to be in the high- 
est degree scriptural ; this practice they uphold and 
adopt. In fact, so intensely Paedobaptist in theory 
are Baptists according to their understanding of what 
scriptural Paedobaptism is, that if their theory were 
consistently carried out, there would never be any 
baptisms but baptisms of infants. In this sense, there- 
fore, Baptists may justly claim to be Psedobaptists of 
the Psedobaptists. 

I speak in a parable, my readers will think : I has- 
ten to make my parable plain. In one word, then, 
this is my meaning: Whereas Psedobaptists, so called, 
baptize those who are infant in the natural sense of 
that term, Baptists, so called, baptize those who are 
infant in the spiritual sense of that term. 

Psedobaptists baptize persons soon after their birth 

194 



THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 1 95 

from the womb ; Baptists baptize persons soon after 
their birth from above. Paedobaptists, therefore, are 
we all, both they and we alike ; only they reckon by 
the flesh, while we reckon by the spirit. 

It is curious that our Paedobaptist brethren do not 
see that the typical meaning of circumcision — if, in- 
deed, circumcision has any typical meaning applicable 
here — is wholly in favor of Baptist Psedobaptism, and 
not of Paedobaptist. 

I am far from maintaining that circumcision is a 
true type of baptism. There would be found want- 
ing, perhaps, on close examination, some of the essen- 
tial characteristics of a true scriptural type. But, 
granted that the correspondence between circumcision 
and baptism is sufficient to warrant a rhetorical use 
of it for purposes of illustration, it will be plain, on 
a little reflection, that the analogy, such as it is, lends 
itself for these purposes much more naturally to the 
service of the Baptist than of the standard Paedobap- 
tist view. 

For consider the facts in the case. Ancient Israel 
was a type of the Christian Church — a type, let it be 
remarked ; for ancient Israel was not the Christian 
Church. It was the Christian Church's type. It con- 
tained, indeed, the Christian Church in part, as that 
church may, by an allowable prolepsis in language, 
be said to have existed before the Christian era. But 
they were not all Israel which were of Israel — that is 
to say, the Jewish nation was not commensurate and 
coincident with the true Jewish Church, the truly be- 
lieving Jews. The nation was not the church, though 



I96 THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 

it contained the church. The Jewish nation, notwith- 
standing, was the type of the Christian Church. 

Now, of what persons was the Jewish nation com- 
posed? Of descendants of the patriarch Abraham. 
Abraham's natural posterity — natural in a sense, though 
supernaturally initiated in Isaac, the child of promise 
— Abraham's natural posterity, I say, through all their 
descending generations, constituted the Jewish nation. 
Of the Jewish nationality thus created, circumcision 
was appointed to be the outward distinguishing mark. 
The mark of circumcision was regularly affixed during 
the infancy of its subjects. Those subjects were thus 
formally and visibly designated as members of the 
Jewish nation. 

So far on the side of the shadow or type. Now, what 
is to be affirmed, the transition being made to the side 
of the antitype or substance ? If circumcision is the 
analogue of baptism, what relation shall baptism be 
declared to hold to membership in the Christian 
Church, that true antitype of the Jewish nation ? 
Why, manifestly the analogical relation, and no other. 
What is that analogical relation ? To this question 
there can be but one answer. As circumcision marks 
offspring in the natural line of descent, so baptism 
marks offspring in the spiritual line of descent. If 
the natural children of Abraham were circumcised 
soon after their birth in the flesh, Abraham's spiritual 
children are to be baptized in like relation of sequence 
and nearness to their birth in the Spirit. To baptize 
natural offspring simply because they are natural 
offspring, on the ground that circumcision was thus 



THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 1 97 

applied, is to make baptism no longer the analogue 
of circumcision, but the substitute for it. The church 
ceases thus to be parallel to the Jewish nation as anti- 
type to type. The two, remaining no longer separate, 
though like, become identical, instead of being anal- 
ogous in mode of derivation and persistence. The 
Christian Church, by logical consistency, so reduced 
from being the antitype of the Jewish nation, might 
more truly be described as "successor to it and con- 
tinuer of it. The Christian Church in this way is 
changed from a spiritual into a natural community. 
This is what logic, on the current Psedobaptist theory, 
would make of the Christian Church. The Roman 
Catholic body and the various state establishments of 
religion in Europe may serve to show how faithfully 
logic has been illustrated by history. This, however, 
introduces a topic too large and too serious to be dis- 
missed with an allusion. The historical aspect of in- 
fant baptism as practised by Paedobaptists, so called, 
will demand treatment by itself. I purpose, on the 
suitable occasion, to devote to it a separate chapter. 
Under the typical polity of the Jewish nation the 
child could not, of course, be circumcised until he 
was born. He was born a member of the nation, 
and then was circumcised as such. If circumcision 
was to the Jewish nation what baptism was to be to 
the Christian Church, it follows of necessity that the 
subject of baptism must be born before baptism of the 
subject is possible. But what natural birth was to the 
Jewish nation, that spiritual birth is to the Christian 
Church. As circumcision could not be performed 
17* 



I98 THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 

until after natural birth, so baptism, by necessity of 
the analogy, cannot be performed until after spiritual 
birth. To perform it before is, rightly regarded, a 
ludicrous anachronism ; more strictly still and more 
seriously, it is a simple and absolute nullity. The 
person has been born, to be sure, but the Christian 
has not ; and it is the Christian that is to be baptized, 
for of Christians the church is composed. Baptism, 
like circumcision, initiates. Theoretically at least, 
and actually so far as is possible, none are to be 
initiated into the Christian Church but true Chris- 
tians. No others can be really initiated, and no others 
should be formally initiated, unless we are to abandon 
the principle of a converted church-membership and 
conform our churches to the Roman Catholic theory. 
Against this theory, the Baptist churches are, among 
evangelical bodies, alone in consistently protesting. 
Their mission of protest, Baptists do not mean to 
abandon. They have received, they think, this trust 
from God. They stand for the true infant baptism — 
the baptism, that is to say, of spiritual infants. The 
pseudo-Paedobaptism — the baptism, that is to say, of 
natural infants, persons not yet born into the kingdom 
of God — -they will steadfastly oppose. Scripture, 
reason, history, cry with one voice in their ears loud- 
ly against it. Baptists claim to be the true Paedobap- 
tists, and they hope yet to recall their brethren all to 
scriptural infant baptism. 



CHAPTER XXII. 
WHAT "CLOSE COMMUNION" REALLY IS. 

RESTRICTED communion, as practised by Bap- 
tists, is not positive; it is strictly negative. It 
does not turn away ; it simply does not invite. Not 
inviting, it naturally does not accept invitations. That 
is really the whole. Restricted communion does noth- 
ing more than just maintain this attitude of not doing. 
What could be less offensive ? 

But restricted communion offends, nevertheless. 
Why? Not for what it does, certainly, for it does 
nothing ; hardly for what it does not do, for what it 
does not do is what no one cares to have done. No 
one cares to invite, and no one cares to be invited — 
that is, for the practical purpose of accepting the in- 
vitation or of having the invitation accepted. I speak 
now generally. There are, of course, instances of ex- 
ception ; these may be numerous. They are, however, 
of no material consequence, being exceptions strictly, 
and not of the general rule. The general rule is that 
no one not Baptist wishes to invite Baptists, and no one 
not Baptist wishes to be invited by Baptists. Restricted 
communion, therefore, disappoints no one's wish. It 
merely does not do — what ? Why, something that no 
one wants to have done. Restricted communion, ac- 

199 



200 THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 

cordingly, does not offend by what it is in itself. And 
yet it offends. Why ? I ask again. If not by what it 
is, then how does it offend ? 

I answer, By its reasons for being what it is. Let 
restricted communion but give up its reasons, it may 
retain its practices and nobody will complain. If you 
only will invite, so our Paedobaptist brethren seem to 
say, — if you only will invite, you need not. It is be- 
cause you will not that we want you to. Just say we 
are welcome, and we shall be satisfied ; we do not care 
to come. That is not it at all. But we should like to 
have you say " Come." Nay, you need not even say 
" Come " if you will but agree that you have no con- 
scientious reasons for not saying " Come." We are rea- 
sonable. All we ask is that you think we are right. 
You need not act upon your thought. Just have the 
thought; we want nothing more. 

Something such, I say, is the language of many 
Paedobaptists toward Baptists. Of course, the language 
does not take this simple form. But reduce the lan- 
guage often heard from Paedobaptists to its lowest 
terms, and this is it. Our Paedobaptist friends care 
nothing for the privilege of coming to our communion- 
table ; they care nothing for our company at theirs. If 
all was free on both sides, there would practically be 
very little intercommunion. They care nothing for the 
fact, but they care much for the sentiment. But it 
happens to be precisely the sentiment that we care for 
too ; the fact is as little to us as it is to our Paedobap- 
tist brethren. But, on the other hand, the sentiment is 
as much ; we could change the fact, but the sentiment 



THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 201 

would abide, and, the sentiment abiding, the changed 
fact would not serve any purpose. We keep the fact 
because we keep the sentiment : the two go together. 
The fact is the sign ; the sentiment is what the fact 
signifies. Without its signification, the fact is nothing. 
W T hat is the fact, and what is the signification ? The fact, 
in a word, is " restricted communion ;" and restricted 
communion, remember, is the usage of not inviting un- 
baptized persons to the Lord's Supper and of not accept- 
ing the invitation of unbaptized persons to the Supper. 
Such is the fact ; and the signification of the fact is 
simply this : We think the will of the Lord to be that 
all believers should be baptized, and that only when 
baptized should they come to the Lord's Table. If we 
could give up thinking as we do on this point, we could, 
of course, very easily give up acting as we do. Our 
conduct is simply true to our conviction ; that is all. If 
we should change our conduct, then our conduct would 
cease to represent our conviction. We should act the 
lie, and not the truth. 

Now, conceive our conduct changed with no corre- 
sponding change of conviction. We practise " open 
communion," while we believe in restricted communion 
— that is to say, holding that no one ought to par- 
take without having first been baptized, we still in- 
vite you, our unbaptized brethren in Christ, to a seat 
at our table. We invite you, but at the same time, true 
to our conviction, we say to you, " You do wrong in 
not being baptized before you partake. Neverthe- 
less, come, unbaptized as you are ; we make you wel- 
come. Though we warn you you do wrong, never 



202 THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 

mind what we say in warning ; hear only what we say 
in inviting. Come, brethren, come ! You ought not 
to, but come sit with us at the Lord's Table." I ask, 
Would there be any gain to Christian comity if we 
should practise open "communion" on these terms? 
Would it be more agreeable to our Psedobaptist 
brethren to be thus invited and warned in one and 
the same breath than it is not to be invited at all ? 

Or suppose a converse case. We are now ourselves 
politely invited to sit at the Lord's Table with our un- 
baptized brethren. We accept the invitation, at the 
same time delivering our souls by assuring our in- 
viters that they do wrong in not being baptized be- 
fore they partake. We come, for our consciences, 
we inform them, so far as our own participation is 
concerned, are quite satisfactorily clear in the matter ; 
but, lest our coming at their invitation should be mis- 
construed by them to their harm or to the harm of 
the truth, we carefully purge ourselves in coming by 
advising our inviters that they, on their part, have no 
right to press their way to the table save through the 
Lord's by them yet unopened door of baptism. Pray, 
tell me, would our courtesy in accepting the invitation 
so far over-compensate our fidelity in warning our 
brethren, while we accept it, to go and be baptized 
before they come to the table themselves, that there 
would be on the whole a decided access of mutual 
good feeling in consequence ? Would " open com- 
munion " on terms such as these be a change worth 
the while ? 

Or, now, suppose yet again that we give and take 



THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 203 

invitations to intercommunion, not stating our convic- 
tions in word, but still holding them the same. Would 
mutual fellowship be greatly enhanced ? That is to 
say, if our acts were perfectly well known not to repre- 
sent our silent convictions, would our acts, ostensibly 
signifying an agreement against which our thoughts all 
the while were busy protesting, — would these acts, I 
inquire, be accepted as a valuable contribution to inter- 
denominational comity and love ? Would not rather 
our Psedobaptist brethren justly assure us that as long 
as our hearts and our consciences were not in our acts 
of apparent hospitality, those acts were to them worth 
nothing in the world ? I seem to hear them saying 
with one voice, " Act as you feel, dear brethren. Acts, 
on your part, contrary to your convictions and feel- 
ings, are to us no acceptable sacrifice. We do not 
care for your acts ; or, rather, your sentiments are the 
acts of yours for which alone we do care. Change 
your sentiments ; but, till you do, keep acting in ac- 
cordance with your sentiments. Acknowledge that we 
are right : that is what we ask. As long as you refuse 
to do this, it is no matter to us just how you insist on 
reminding us that we are wrong." 

And, after all, is there conceivable any less offensive 
way than the way of restricted communion in which 
we can keep testifying to our Paedobaptist brethren our 
immovable conviction that in a grave matter of obedi- 
ence to our Lord, both theirs and ours, they are sadly 
— we will not say wilfully, but strangely and mischiev- 
ously — wrong ? 

Yet once more : let all, Baptists and Paedobaptists 



204 THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 

alike, bear distinctly in mind just what it is wherein 
restricted communion consists. Restricted communion 
for Baptists consists in their practice of not, on the one 
hand, inviting unbaptized persons to sit with them at 
the Lord's Table, and of not, on the other, accepting 
invitations from such to sit at the Lord's Table with 
them. This is the whole sum of the matter. Re- 
stricted communion in itself is simply an attitude of 
suspense, an act of abstaining. As a sign it signifies a 
certain most definite conviction — a conviction profound 
and abiding, and a conviction, mdreover, such that it 
will not submit to be silent. Given the conviction, I 
ask again, and given the conviction such, is there any- 
way less objectionable, while equally effective, of making 
it known — any way less objectionable than for Baptists 
to adopt and consistently to follow the very course 
which as matter of fact they might find marked out 
for them by the past and the present consenting ex- 
ample of all Christendom besides? For, in conclu- 
sion, it may fairly be added that Baptist " close com- 
munion," so miscalled, is exactly the same in principle 
— in so far, at least, as baptism is concerned — with the 
practice generally, if not universally, observed by our 
Paedobaptist brethren themselves. We are neither 
closer nor more open, neither narrower nor more broad, 
in our terms of communion than are they. We require 
baptism before the Lord's Supper ; they do the same. 
They admit that to be baptism which seems to us to 
be no baptism at all ; therein lies the real difference be- 
tween Baptists and Paedobaptists. We separate, they 
and we, not at the Lord's Supper, but at baptism. 



THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 205 

Our baptism, no doubt, is " closer " than theirs, but it 
is not closer, we think, than our Lord's. As for our 
communion, that is restricted upon precisely the same 
principle as is their own. 

18 



CHAPTER XXIII. 

CONSTRUCTIVE BAPTISM AND CONSTRUCTIVE 
COMMUNION. 

A RITE ordained becomes an ordinance. To ob- 
serve an ordinance trulv is not ritualism, but 
obedience. I speak, of course, in the sphere of pos- 
itive Christianity, where the ordaining will is Christ's, 

and not man's. Ritualism talks of rites ; obedience 
talks of ordinances. It is not Baptist vernacular to 
call baptism a rite ; the true idiom speaks of it as an 
ordinance. Baptists do not ritualize ; they obey. 

It is the essence of ritualism to regard the rite as a 
means operative by a virtue inherent in itself; it is the 
essence of obedience to consider the ordinance as a 
condition merely, imperative because appointed. The 
ritualist is nice and careful, lest somehow unawares he 
impair the spell which his rite is to him ; the obedient 
man is scrupulous, lest he fail somewhere in meeting 
the exact will of his Master. The ritualist is super- 
stitious in awe oi his rite ; the obedient man is loyal 
in awe and in love of his Lord. 

Exactness, therefore, is by no means of necessity a 

note of ritualism ; it may quite as naturally be a mark 

of the purely obedient spirit. Now, when a rite is 

ordained — that is to say, when a defined external ob- 

206 



THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 207 

servance is prescribed — there is inevitably implied in 
obedience something more than the spirit to obey ; a 
literal act is commanded. Obedience accordingly means 
the performance of that act, and not merely the spirit to 
perform it. There is no room here for talking of the 
difference between the spirit and the letter. At such 
a point as this, provided only the act be clearly de- 
terminable in nature and possible to performance, — at 
such a point, I say, letter and spirit become one. The 
spirit to obey would seem certain to issue in obedience; 
but the spirit to obey is not obedience. When a phys- 
ical act is commanded, the physical then is an indis- 
pensable means of helping the spiritual to obey. To 
believe otherwise is not so much to fly from ritualism 
as it is to fly toward rationalism. To be sure, the 
Sabbath was made for man ; but then, after all, even 
so it remains that something was made for man. The 
question is, What ? 

In the present case, however, the ordinance is a very 
simple imperative contained in two English words rep- 
resenting a single word in Greek : " Be baptized." 
What the imperative means need not concern us 
now, but manifestly it means something. Suppose 
for the moment that it merely means in the largest, 
vaguest way, " Have water applied to your person in 
token of discipleship." Still, even with so much lati- 
tude of interpretation, the imperative persists, at least, 
in meaning that. It may be deprived of its true mean- 
ing by so wide an inclusion, but surely it is not 
stripped of all meaning. It continues to address 
those who are to be baptized in the second person, 



208 THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 

and it bids them do something — bids them do some- 
thing. 

Only those who are bidden can obey. Now, cer- 
tainly the great mass of Christians composing the 
Paedobaptist communities of Christendom have never, 
in the plain, unsophisticated sense of obedience, obey- 
ed the command, " Be baptized." The command, ob- 
serve, is to each person : " Be baptized." No matter, 
I say again, at this moment exactly what the com- 
mand imports. It imports, at all events, an act which, 
in the very nature of the case and from the very mean- 
ing of human language, no one can possibly perform 
save solely the person addressed — that is, the person 
to be baptized. 

There is so much prepossession here that we are 
constantly in danger of confounding things that differ. 
Let us remember, then, that we are not disputing now 
about quantity of water for baptism, more or less ; we 
are not discussing modes of applying water in bap- 
tism, this or those. It is not even a question as to 
what persons, how qualified, may properly be bap- 
tized. The point is simply and solely whether a cer- 
tain command, or any understanding whatever of the 
command, is truly obeyed. We suppose, for the time, 
that there is no difference of opinion concerning the 
nature of the command. The words " Be baptized " 
mean, we will say, the same thing, and no matter what, 
to both Baptist and Paedobaptist. They are certainly 
a command, whatever they mean. The question, 
therefore, is not, " Have I been baptized ?" but, " Have 
I obeyed the command ?" Obedience consists, not in 



THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 20Q 

having been baptized, but in having obeyed the com- 
mand. Not to be baptized, but to obey, is the im- 
portant thing. The ritualizer is thus found in him 
who contents himself with the act, but neglects the 
obedience. If Baptist or Paedobaptist, either of 
them, ritualizes, it certainly is not the Baptist. 

Now, the actual state of the facts in the Christian 
world is this : The vast majority of Christian profess- 
ors outside the Baptist churches have never, even 
according to the most latitudinarian notions of what 
baptism is, save in their unconscious infancy, been 
baptized. Nearly every candid Psedobaptist, there- 
fore, if asked, " Have you obeyed the command, ' Be 
baptized'?" would be obliged to put a sense not en- 
tirely simple and natural upon the word "obey" in 
order to answer " Yes." To the question, " Have you 
been baptized ?" such a person might, perhaps — indeed, 
he probably would — say " Yes " without hesitation. 
The answer would simply require an exercise of faith 
on his part. To say " Yes " to the question, " Have 
you obeyed the command, ' Be baptized ' ?" would 
require something more than an exercise of faith : 
it would require also an exercise of imagination, or, 
at least, an effort of reason. He would have to say, 
" I have been told, and I believe, that I was baptized 
when a babe ; and I now voluntarily and freely adopt 
my then unconscious submission as my present delib- 
erate act. I have, therefore, obeyed the command." 
He would evidently thus acknowledge that to the 
ordinance, " Be baptized," he had rendered, if any 
obedience at all, then a purely constructive obedience. 
is* o 



2IO THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 

For the command is not the solecism " Have been 
baptized ;" it is the plain, reasonable, and practicable 
"Be baptized" — a command perpetually binding till 
it be obeyed. 

To the Baptist, therefore, his Paedobaptist brethren 
cannot but appear as disobedient in the matter of this 
ordinance of their Lord. Even upon their own the- 
ory of baptism, their obedience is at least only a con- 
structive obedience. Their baptism, accordingly, how- 
ever perfect in fact and in form, is in essence and in 
spirit only a constructive baptism. 

Constructive obedience, in such a case, is no obe- 
dience at all to the Baptist ; and constructive baptism 
is no baptism at all to him. So little is the Baptist a 
ritualizer that the fact of the rite observed is as noth- 
ing in his sight compared with the spirit of obedience 
in the observance. He is utterly at a loss to under- 
stand how Paedobaptists can satisfy themselves with 
what even to them is merely a constructive obedience. 
He recognizes the fact, however, that they so satisfy 
themselves, and he cheerfully admits that they act con- 
scientiously. He is, therefore, free, and he is glad, to 
enter into spiritual communion with them as Chris- 
tians. This he does habitually and without reserve. 
He merely abstains from a particular symbol of com- 
munion in what he believes to be a sentiment of par- 
amount loyalty to his Lord. 

Since Paedobaptists thus accept from themselves the 
spirit of obedience without the fact of obedience in 
relation to baptism, might they not likewise accept 
from us the spirit of communion without the fact of 



THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 211 

communion in relation to the Lord's Supper? In per- 
fect good faith and in godly sincerity I desire to ask 
Paedobaptists, " Is not this which in venial accommo- 
dation of phrase we may call our constructive com- 
munion a full, fair response to what in strict propriety 
of language must be called your constructive bap- 
tism ?" 



CHAPTER XXIV. 
THE SENTIMENTAL VIEW OF THE LORD'S SUPPER. 

BREACHES of customary ecclesiastical usage 
with respect to the observance of the Lord's 
Supper occur now and again that plainly show how 
needful just at present is a little wholesome self-recol- 
lection on the part of most evangelical churches as to 
the true idea and use of the ordinance. Besides the 
Romanist, the Lutheran, and the modified Zwinglian 
or modern Sacramentarian theory of the Eucharist, 
still another theory may be distinguished : there is 
likewise the sentimental theory. This sentimental 
theory may exist independently by itself; but it is 
more likely to exist in connection with one or another 
of the different theories first mentioned, imparting 
then to that a certain quality of its own. 

Circumstances sometimes conspire to create a case 
of no little difficulty for susceptible temperaments. A 
Christian woman lies dying ; she strongly desires to 
partake of the Lord's Supper. She is herself a be- 
liever duly baptized ; friends and kindred present, 
however, though professed believers, have never obeyed 
Christ in baptism. Shall the minister provide a cele- 
bration of the Lord's Supper in such a case, and admit 
these unbaptized communicants ? To refuse might 

212 



THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 213 

seem unfeeling. A case of the sort some years ago 
occurred, and the minister recites the case very touch- 
ingly. It was not wonderful that a man of genial sensi- 
bilities should be moved as this minister was. The 
exaltation of feeling to which he testifies as experi- 
enced in common by all the participants of the act 
was entirely natural. No doubt it was real, and no 
doubt it was honest. I should be the last to make 
light of a scene so sanctified by the most beautiful 
and the tenderest affections of the human heart. The 
mere fact that the chief incident of the occasion was 
a mistake — a serious mistake even, considering the 
serious sequel of the principles involved, — this fact 
does not make the occasion a fit subject for jest or for 
very severe reprobation. The high-wrought emotions 
of that select and solemn hour were, doubtless, genu- 
ine ; they may, too, have had some substantial effect 
of edification on the participants. But to grant this 
is by no means to grant that the act itself was a proper 
one. The sweet transfigured sentiment was no illu- 
sion ; but the notion that this sentiment depended on 
the particular act of communion in bread and wine as 
its condition, — such a notion, by whomsoever enter- 
tained, is, I believe, an illusion. 

I should not need to be a Baptist to say this. But 
this minister was a Baptist. He was a liberal Baptist, 
but he did not believe in the baptism of infants. Let 
me propose a question. Suppose that dying Christian 
woman had been the mother of an infant child ; sup- 
pose that early education and long prepossession had 
reasserted their power at that supreme moment over 



214 THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 

her mind and her conscience, and that, though now 
herself a Baptist by profession, she had earnestly 
wished to see her little one consecrated to a covenant- 
keeping God in the rite of baptism ; suppose, once 
more, that our Baptist minister had yielded to this 
pathetic wish of the dying mother, and had consented 
to sprinkle the precious drops of that sparkling chrism 
on the unconscious forehead of the child, while those 
true friends and lovers of the woman stood round to 
witness and to weep. Now, does any one doubt that 
this imaginary occasion would have been marked by 
the same access of beautiful emotion on the part of 
the company as made the real occasion so touching 
and so memorable to them all ? But a true minister 
would not allow himself to be thus convinced that 
God had thereby set his seal to the rite of infant 
baptism as truly of his appointment. He would not 
accept his own sympathetic emotions as the unmis- 
takable voucher of the divine approval of his part in 
the act. He would easily perceive in such a case that 
there was a completely satisfactory way of account- 
ing for his exceptional inward experiences, his own 
and his companions', without resort to the supposition 
of a supernatural cause. It was sympathy, purely 
human sympathy, rendered some degrees more deep 
and more solemn by the consciousness of all that one, 
at least, of their number associated the act, however 
mistakenly, with the idea of obedience to Christ in a 
positive or external ordinance of his. In other words, 
the origin of the emotion in the case supposed would 
be purely sentimental. And such I believe to have 



THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 21 5 

been the origin of the emotion in the case which 
actually occurred. The minister acted, unconsciously, 
on the sentimental theory of the Lord's Supper. 

He made a mistake, for the sentimental view of the 
Lord's Supper is radically wrong. It quite changes 
the relative place of Christ and the believer. It is 
Ptolemaic, and not Copernican : it unawares puts the 
believer instead of Christ in the centre of the system. 
It subjects Christ's ordinance to the Christian, instead 
of subjecting the Christian to the ordinance of Christ. 
Now, in a certain sense the sun was made for the 
earth, but the sun can be more useful to the earth 
when the earth moves and the sun stands still. And 
so the ordinances of Christ were in a certain sense 
made for the Christian, but the Christian is always 
better served by the ordinances when he is himself 
in the attitude of a servant to them. This is espe- 
cially true of the positive or external ordinances of 
Christ. That a distinguishing grace is given to the 
believer in connection with these ordinances I fully 
believe ; but this distinguishing grace is given, not to 
the act, but to the obedience in the act. The ordi- 
nance is not a sort of sacred spell to conjure with ; it 
is not a secret entrusted to the believer, by which he 
may at will command, as if by a certain art of holy 
legerdemain, the peculiar grace divinely pronounced 
upon the ordinance. It is an ordinance — that is, a 
command. Like other commands, it is to be obeyed; 
but, unlike the moral commands, it is in its nature not 
susceptible of habitual — that is, incessant — obedience. 
It can only be obeyed occasionally. The occasions of 



2l6 THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 

obedience are to be determined by New-Testament 
precedents and by the evident nature of the ordi- 
nance itself. To create occasions in self-indulgent 
compliahce with our own capricious humors of re- 
ligious feeling is to subject the ordinance to ourselves, 
instead of subjecting ourselves to the ordinance; it is 
to seek the grace through the act, and not through 
the obedience in the act. This principle, once admit- 
ted, would render it equally proper to celebrate the 
Lord's Supper upon occasions so frequent that it 
would be impossible to name or to number them. The 
obvious tendency would be toward a curious sort of 
sentimental ritualism that might easily grow into a 
burden of observance, of will-worship, too grievous 
to be borne. 

A church might meet, at least by representatives of 
its number, in the room of a member drawing near to 
death, and there celebrate with him the Lord's Supper. 
Such a meeting not unfrequently is held for prayer or 
praise. But there must be no idea, on the part of any, 
that this celebration has a magical virtue in it. If some 
trace of such a false idea be observable in the mind of 
the dying person, then I would have the pastor first 
remove this, and not enter upon the observance of the 
rite until it was made perfectly clear to all that the 
Lord's Supper is in no wise efficacious or more appro- 
priate than, for instance, a commendatory prayer or a 
convoying hymn as a preparation for death. The dan- 
ger — a vital one — to be guarded against is that the 
dying person will look upon the Supper as a kind of 
viaticum for the parting soul on its last journey. There 



THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 2\J 

is superstition in the sentiment to be scrupulously exor- 
cised. But, at all events, such an occasion should not 
be admitted to dispense any other participant, more 
than it dispensed the dying man himself, from the obli- 
gation, which almost all denominations agree to recog- 
nize as universally binding, to have been previously 
baptized. 

At all times, and never more needfully than at the 
dying moment of the believer, it is the Christian pas- 
tor's obvious duty to remove every other prop from the 
disciple's faith, and let him lean and sink, however far, 
until he rests and is strong leaning full on the arm of 
his Beloved. It may be kind, but it is not wisely kind, 
to let anything, then at least, come between the believer 
and his Lord. There is something still better than an 
ordinance of Christ : it is Christ. 

19 



CHAPTER XXV. 

"CLOSE COMMUNION" AS A METHOD OF PROPA- 

GANDISM. 

THE continued — perhaps increasing — sensitiveness 
of the Paedobaptist communities respecting the 
seclusive attitude assumed by most American Baptist 
churches in their observance of the Lord's Supper be- 
comes to those Baptist churches a constantly strength- 
ening reason for persisting courageously and hopefully 
in their now well-established practice of " close com- 
munion," so called. This is not because the average 
Baptist is less alive than the average Christian, in gen- 
eral, to the pleasure of being on excellent reciprocal 
terms of companionship with his fellows. The earnest 
Baptist sectary possesses as much as his neighbor, 
Paedobaptist or worldling, of that amicable disposition, 
sometimes a virtue and sometimes a vice, which per- 
petually inclines us all to enjoy being complaisant and 
agreeable to our friends and acquaintances. But, mis- 
takenly or otherwise, the strenuous American Baptist 
has conscientiously made up his mind that Providence 
has committed to his hands a custody and a champion- 
ship of an important imperilled ordinance of his Lord. 
To maintain a conspicuous, incessant, organic testimony 
on behalf of this ordinance is to the American Baptist 

218 



THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 219 

— that is, Baptist by conviction, and not merely by pre- 
scription — a leading reason of existence for his church 
as a member of a distinct denominational body. 

It is the practical problem proposed by Providence 
to the Baptist churches of America in what way most 
effectively, and at the same time least offensively, they 
may articulate their testimony to the integrity and 
purity of the ordinance of baptism — with respect to its 
own unalterable nature, indeed, but much more with 
respect to its subjects — and preserve the ordinance as 
they vividly believe that it was once delivered to the 
saints by the Lord himself, and after him by his inspired 
apostles. 

Such being their problem, as the Baptist churches of 
the land long ago felt compelled to accept it at the 
hands of their Lord (for, whether they were beside 
themselves, it was to God), two solutions were open to 
their choice. They might either limit themselves to 
the iteration of their testimony by simple word of 
mouth, or they might adopt a less importunate method 
in some form of significant silence. If they should 
elect the oral method, they must labor under two very 
serious disadvantages. In the first place, they must 
insist in their public instructions upon the sole article 
of baptism to an extent far out of proportion to its true 
place and importance in a vast and harmonious system 
of scriptural truth and obedience. The effect would 
inevitably be to breed fanaticism or — almost as bad — 
to induce utter moral sterility in both speaker and 
hearer. In the second place, a further obvious disad- 
vantage of the oral method would be that the testimony 



220 THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 

so rendered would take effect only where it was not 
needed, and where, in such disproportionate excess, it 
would be positively hurtful ; for, of course, Paedobap- 
tists would not feel called to come and subject them- 
selves as hearers to preaching like this. The effect of 
the oral method would thus be null where alone it was 
needed, while where alone it was felt it would be in- 
jurious. The sole alternative remaining to American 
Baptists was to withhold their testimony altogether, or 
else to adopt some means of testifying in silence. 

For reasons that appear very cogent — indeed, quite 
imperative — to American Baptists, they dared not 
withhold their testimony altogether. They cast, there- 
fore, about them for some habitual act that should at 
once and for all incorporate their testimony in a living 
and impressive sign, and should thus release their 
tongues for the more fruitful preaching of the mani- 
fold obedience of Christ. * The almost universally 
conceded relationship of priority between baptism and 
the Lord's Supper suggested to American Baptists an 
obvious and unmistakable means of embodying their 
testimony in an appropriate visible sign. With insig- 
nificant exceptions, the churches of Christendom all 
agreed in requiring baptism according to their ideas 
of baptism as the invariable antecedent of the Lord's 
Supper. The Baptists, in like just consistency with 
their own views of what baptism is, both as to its 
nature and especially as to its subjects, had only to do 

* I am, of course, giving here not the history, but the rationale, of 
" close communion." As a matter of fact, " close communion " among 
Baptists in America is an inheritance from Great Britain. 



THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 221 

precisely the same thi?tg with all Christendom besides, 
and already their duty of testimony was accomplished 
at a stroke, and was also set in constant course of ac- 
complishment. An occasional utterance to interpret 
and vindicate their conduct to themselves and to their 
brethren, and they might otherwise join heart and hand 
with all that loved their Lord together with themselves 
in every act of a common obedience to his will. It 
seemed absolutely the most loyal and the least ob- 
trusive method conceivable of fulfilling the mission 
which they solemnly believed that they, as a denomi- 
nation of Christians, had received from their Master. 
They could not do less ; they need not do more. 

Let generous Psedobaptists be sure that their Bap- 
tist brethren are deeply, immovably in earnest about 
this. Baptists do intensely believe that their Paedo- 
baptist brethren are wrong here, and, being here wrong, 
are wrong at a point that is incalculably important, if 
it be not even absolutely essential, to the life of the 
kingdom of Christ among men. This Baptists be- 
lieve, and they cannot believe otherwise. Is it any- 
thing more than a fair tolerance of different belief for 
Paedobaptists to allow Baptists to publish their convic- 
tions ; to publish them by a negative act of simply ab- 
staining ; to publish them in a way that infringes no 
fellow-Christian's liberty, but merely imposes, instead, 
a check upon their own strong natural impulses to self- 
indulging, sentimental good-fellowship, — is so much 
concession as this of freedom to Baptists anything 
more, I ask, than a just measure of humane comity, of 
Christian charity? Baptists certainly think as they do 
19 * 



222 THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 

think about Paedobaptists, but they would love Psedo- 
baptists none the less for being magnanimously per- 
mitted to express their thoughts about them. What is 
called " close communion " in one important view of 
the subject is simply an organized method of propa- 
gandism for beliefs and practices that Baptists will 
assuredly never give up, and that for the sake of their 
brethren, of the world, and of Christ they are very un- 
willing to hold to alone. They are sorry that their 
testimony is unwelcome to any, but they are thank- 
fully glad that, at least, it makes its impression. They 
join with heart in the prayer of many for the advent 
of that day when there shall be " one flock, one 
Shepherd." 



CHAPTER XXVI. 

BAPTIST VERNACULAR. 

EVERY separate set of distinctive fundamental 
ideas, in whatever sphere of thought, tends to 
appropriate for itself a certain distinguishable mode 
of expression, which may be called its dialect or 
vernacular. This is true in morals, in social science, 
in politics, in philosophy, in literature, and it is no 
less true in religion. There is a contrasted and recog- 
nizable use of language natural and normal to each one 
of all the existing sects or denominations of Christians. 
It is in this sense of the phrase that I write in the head- 
ing to the present chapter " Baptist Vernacular." I 
mean by it that well-defined selection and adaptation 
of words by which the thoroughbred and well-in- 
structed Baptist expresses the ideas peculiar to his 
school of religious opinion. 

This, like every other established vernacular, pos- 
sesses an idiom and an accent which are very sensitive 
and very exacting. It is exceedingly easy for a man 
who was not born to it or who has not been bred in 
it — who, in fact, does not speak it as his mother- 
tongue — to make a foreigner's mistake in attempting 
to use it. I wish to point out one such slip in Baptist 
vernacular that I have observed during recent news- 

223 



224 THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 

paper controversy on the subject of " close com- 
munion," so called. Of course, I refer to a choice 
of phraseology exemplified in writers assuming to 
express themselves as regular Baptists. I raise no 
question as to the absolute sincerity and candor of 
the writers alluded to ; I do not wish to mention any 
writer by name. Indeed, the discussion may better be 
quite impersonal and anonymous. I purposely imply 
by using the word " slip " here that the deviation from 
just Baptist idiom under present remark is uninten- 
tional, and even unwitting, on the part of such as have 
made it. 

It is not pure Baptist vernacular to discuss matters 
of religious usage as questions of individual right 
appertaining or not to the Christian. I do not now 
say that the Christian has no " rights " in the sense, 
whatever the sense may be, in which that word is 
thus employed in religious discussion. But it is not 
good Baptist vernacular so to employ the word : the 
word assumes the wrong point of view; it is not just 
to the true controlling Baptist idea. The true control- 
ling Baptist idea is duty, not right. The proper point of 
view puts the Lord, and not the disciple, in the centre. 
Baptists, in as far as they are ideal — that is, consist- 
ent — Baptists, occupy themselves, not with claiming or 
with conceding individual rights, but with obeying 
their Lord. It betrays the unconscious presence and 
influence of different controlling ideas — ideas not only 
not Baptist, but intensely anti-Baptist — when a man 
naturally falls to talking of individual rights in discuss- 
ing points of religious observance. 



THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 225 

Besides this, to use the word " right " as it is some- 
times thus used by persons assuming to speak in the 
character of Baptists is yet otherwise a slip in Baptist 
vernacular. True Baptist vernacular is, at least, intel- 
ligible and clear ; but the word " right," thus used, is 
hopelessly vague and ambiguous. " Right " is a rel- 
ative word. When you say, for example, that the be- 
liever has a " right" to sit at the Lord's Table, what do 
you mean? You mean that he has a "just claim" to 
do so. If I have a just claim, it must be a claim upon 
some one. But " claim " here upon whom ? " Claim" 
upon Christ ? If so, it is then Christ's duty to pro- 
vide for the believer a seat at his table. What makes 
it such ? Some voluntary engagement, it must be, 
undertaken by Christ. Where has Christ undertaken 
any engagement of this sort ? Impliedly, it may be 
said, in the command, " Do this in remembrance of 
me." Granted. But to whom was this command 
addressed? We must answer this question before 
we can decide with whom, if with any, Christ has 
engaged himself to provide for them a seat at his 
table. It was addressed to men that had believed. 
True. But also to men that had been baptized. 

It is no assumption to say that Christ's apostles had 
been baptized, any more than it is to say that they be- 
lieved in Christ — indeed, not so much. True, it is in- 
conceivable that they did not all believe, or profess to 
believe, in him ; they would not have been present oth- 
erwise. But no more would they have been present if 
they had not been baptized. Christ himself, to make 
his own example perfect, had submitted to baptism. 

p 



226 THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 

He afterward baptized either with his own hands or by 
the hands of his disciples, and he most solemnly en- 
joined baptism as the very first duty of discipleship. Is 
it possible to thought that Jesus, having first scrupulously 
been baptized himself, should then have had baptism ad- 
ministered to others by those who themselves had never 
been baptized ? Granted it is nowhere expressly said 
that every one of the apostles was baptized. Neither 
is it anywhere expressly said that every one of the 
apostles believed. Indeed, Judas, we know, did not, 
in the true sense of belief, although he no doubt had 
been baptized, for baptism was the invariable profes- 
sion and badge of discipleship. If, then, the applica- 
tion of the command, " Do this in remembrance of 
me " — in other words the ordinance [command] of the 
Lord's Supper — is not limited in its original intention 
by the qualification in participants of baptism, it is not 
limited, either, by the qualification in them of faith. 
In fact, no qualification whatever, then, can be named 
that should limit it. It is, then, indiscriminately and 
universally binding on all men everywhere, without 
reference to their character or their conduct. This 
would be " open communion " in its only true logical 
comprehension. 

But perhaps the word " right " in the formula that 
the " believer has a right " to a seat at the Lord's Table 
means "just claim," not upon Christ, but upon fellow- 
believers. I, then, as a believer, in that character sim- 
ply have a "just claim" upon my fellow-believers to 
enjoy, under their provision and at their expense, a 
seat with them at the table of the Lord. Does this 



THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 22J 

notion, thus frankly stated, need any discussion ? 
Would not an admiration-point after it be enough ? 
Why, if it is my fellow-believers' duty to provide for 
me a seat at the Lord's Table, it must have been made 
their duty by some ordinance to that effect created by 
Christ. Where is there such an ordinance ? It does 
not exist in any form, express or implicit. It could 
not by any possibility exist in a book like the Bible, 
where common sense is as omnipresent as is inspira- 
tion. If " right " is predicated only in the extremely 
imperfect sense of the believer's "just claim" not to be 
actively prevented by fellow-believers from sitting at 
the Lord's Table somewhere, under suitable conditions, 
why then nobody in this free country disputes the " be- 
liever's right " to do that, and the discussion ends ex- 
actly where it began. Baptists never question Psedo- 
baptists' right to celebrate the Lord's Supper in this 
sense of the word " right!' Paedobaptists have, no doubt, 
a perfectly just claim on Baptists not to be hindered by 
them ; and Baptists always respect the claim. Baptists 
have at different times been very much embarrassed 
themselves by others in this respect, but I never heard 
of others being at all embarrassed by Baptists, and I 
presume I never shall hear of such a thing. 

If Christians would consistently restrict themselves 
to thinking of duty, and refuse to indulge themselves 
in thinking of rights with regard to the Lord's Supper, 
there would speedily come an end to controversies on 
the subject of " close " and " open " communion. There 
is just one command bearing on the point: "Do this 
in remembrance of me." Let us all attend to obeying: 



228 THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 

that will solve the problem at once. The commands 
of Christ are all of them equally binding, and equally 
binding upon all. In a true and in a very solemn sense 
the command, " Do this in remembrance of me," is 
binding upon every sinner as much as upon any Chris- 
tian, and as much as the command, " Repent." But 
there is a natural order of obedience. It is obviously 
the intention of Christ that all who partake of the Sup- 
per shall first have repented ; but quite as obviously it 
is Christ's intention that all who participate in the Sup- 
per shall first have been baptized. If I think I have 
been baptized, that does not fulfil the purpose of Christ, 
unless my thought corresponds with the fact. My 
thought, however mistaken, may, indeed, make it my 
individual duty to act accordingly, and, though unbap- 
tized, obey the ordinance of the Supper ; but if your 
thought is different, and more just, perhaps, than mine, 
you certainly have no duty to encourage me in my 
mistake either by word or by deed. Nay, it is then 
your duty to disturb my false persuasion, or persuasion 
believed by you to be false, in every suitable way of 
moral influence. 

Exactly thus Baptists do toward Paedobaptists by 
their much-misunderstood practice of " close commu- 
nion," so called. There is no precept bidding us to 
sit down to the Lord's Table with those whom we 
believe not to have been baptized ; there is a precept 
that we should teach others to observe all things 
whatsoever Christ has commanded. This we try to 
do, and a part of our method consists in what is com- 
monly called " close communion." We have reason 



THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 229 

to thank God that he is pleased to make it in such 
a measure successful. What God has rendered our 
duty, let our fellow-Christians at least concede to be 
our " right." 

There is a second mistake in dialect much like the 
first, but still different enough to deserve separate men- 
tion. Indeed, the very likeness of it to the first requires 
that it be discriminated from that in order to be recog- 
nized as really another mistake, and not the same. The 
mistake is calling the Lord's Supper a " privilege," in 
contrast with baptism conceived as of a " duty." Now, 
strictly and scripturally speaking, what warrant have 
we to make such a distinction as this between baptism 
and the Supper ? None whatever, as I fully believe. 
Of baptism and of the Supper, each one equally, it 
may be said that it is at the same time both a duty 
and a privilege. Let us have done distinguishing 
between the commands of our Lord in this invidious 
way. True privilege to the Christian is ever the priv- 
ilege of obeying his Lord. If a Christian professor 
finds himself enjoying in the Lord's Supper a pleas- 
ure different from this, he may well stop and inquire, 
" L, my joy genuine ? Is there not some adulteration 
of mere sentiment in it?" What Baptist pastor is 
there who will not testify that there has occurred in his 
experience many and many a case of joy on the part of 
the convert in the act of being baptized not less, cer- 
tainly, than that which attended afterward the same 
convert's participation of bread and wine at the table 
of the Lord ? Charles Wesley never had a truer in- 
spiration than when he wrote, 
20 



230 THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 

"Oh, how happy are they 
Who their Saviour obey !" 

In truth, the joy of obedience is often greatest in tri- 
umphing over the natural choice of the heart and 
turning what was a duty into a privilege. The rela- 
tion between Obedience and her Lord is a beautiful 
relation — beautiful and blessed. His statutes are her 
song ; Obedience sings them all — not some of them, 
but all of them. Baptism is to her a privilege as 
much as is the Lord's Supper. 

Let us take care of our dialect. Let us cease talk- 
ing so much of our rights and talk more of our duties. 
Let us beware how we choose among the command- 
ments, calling this a privilege, that a duty. Finally, 
let us pay no heed to speaking pure " Baptist," and 
all heed to speaking pure Christian. For what is good 
Baptist dialect if it be not good Christian dialect? 
Nothing, nothing, nothing in the world, but jargon 
and a strife of tongues. 



CHAPTER XXVII. 
THE CURRENT BAPTIST CRISIS. 

THERE is no current Baptist crisis. What ap- 
pears to be such is such only in appearance ; it 
is purely factitious. The Baptist denomination in this 
country was never more solidly of one mind and one 
heart on the question of " close or open communion," 
so called, than it is now. There always have been 
some spirits among us inclined by education, or per- 
haps by constitution, to desire more play for their 
religious sensibilities than the general Baptist usage 
and tradition in America admit ; there are such spirits 
to-day. No valid reason exists for believing that they 
are more numerous or more enthusiastic or more influ- 
ential at the actual moment than they were a year ago 
or ten years ago. The great Baptist denomination has 
always been strong enough and generous enough to 
bear with these brethren, and to honor them, too, for 
what they were, at the same time that it recognized 
clearly what they were not, and regretted it, chiefly for 
their own sake. That is as much the case yet as it 
ever has been. The resultant disposition of us all will 
certainly be, to give those warm-hearted brethren of 
our faith plenty of room and verge to be at home in 
our tabernacles while they still remain precisely what 

231 



232 THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 

they cannot very well help remaining. They will sim- 
ply have to feel a little more constraint than they will 
like to feel in their ways of propagating their senti- 
ments. This is certain to be the end of the present 
factitious crisis. I give here one among many rea- 
sons for my conviction. 

In the first place, the whole matter with " Open- 
Communion" Baptists is to a great extent a matter of 
temperament. The logic is all on one side of the ques- 
tion. It is feeling — stronger than reason — that makes 
any Baptist in this country an " Open-Communion " Bap- 
tist. Now, we are all of us at times subject to accesses 
of feeling that overbear our convictions for the mo- 
ment, and so for the moment control our conduct. 
But there are not many of us that experience this 
habitually and constantly; those of us who do are 
sentimentalists. But sentimentalists are not in the 
majority among Baptists ; they are not even in a very 
numerous minority. Most Baptists are Baptists on 
principle, and not by sentiment. It will never be oth- 
erwise ; the nature of the case forbids it. It is only 
as it were by chance that a sentimentalist strays into 
the camp of the Baptists. The sentiments, as far as 
sentiments are distinct from judgment, tend, in a large 
majority of instances, to make men anything else in 
religion rather than Baptists. Thus Baptists are the 
best sifted, perhaps, among all modern denominations 
of Christians. 

Now, I desire to guard my language against misap- 
prehension. I use the word "sentimentalists " not in 
the way of levity, nor in the way of reproach. I use 



THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 233 

it simply for what it means — to note that class of per- 
sons who in any particular are led by their feelings 
rather than by their judgment. There may be excep- 
tions, but the exceptions are very few ; and I know of 
no exceptions to the rule that among regular American 
Baptists those who hold " open-communion " views hold 
them as sentiments rather than convictions. This, I am 
well aware, might be admitted for true without its being 
admitted that therefore the views thus held as senti- 
ments were not just views, and views quite worthy of 
being held as convictions. Of course, too, " convic- 
tions " are not certainly right, any more than " senti- 
ments " are certainly wrong. I am fully of the opinion 
that sound sentiments will always chime with sound 
convictions. 

I should heartily consent to a Christian's being led 
by his sentiments, provided only his sentiments had 
chief regard, as they should have, to his Lord Christ, 
and a regard strictly subordinate, as their regard should 
be, first to himself, and secondly to his fellows. The 
trouble with the sentiments as sovereign of conduct in 
religion is, that they are very apt to rule too much in 
the interest of indulgence toward self and of com- 
plaisance toward others, and too little in the interest 
of simple obedience toward Christ. 

A prominent young minister of the Baptist denom- 
ination lately furnished a conspicuous illustration of 
my meaning. This minister would be the last man, 
probably, to suspect himself of being a sentimental- 
ist, and I should be the last man to call him a senti- 
mentalist in any offensive meaning of the word. But, 
20 * 



234 THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 

in a published sermon on the subject of the Lord's 
Supper, he used the following language at the point of 
culmination in the interest and power of what he said : 

" If a Presbyterian or a Methodist come within these 
walls on the day of communion, and should feel his 
heart so moved by the services as to have at the close 
a deep yearning to remain and complete the hour's 
worship by showing forth the Lord's death in the use 
of this loaf and cup, I maintain that no courtesy of 
an invitation is needed. The requirements of his 
spiritual nature are supreme. He possesses an in- 
alienable RIGHT, in the silence of the ordinance, to 
proclaim and ratify his love. . . . And if, in the 
providence of God, I should be cast, as so many 
men frequently are, where I should find myself in 
a church not of my own faith, and the same inward 
yearning should come to my heart, I should as- 
suredly use my personal liberty, denying most em- 
phatically the authority of any body of men to call 
me to account." 

Most Paedobaptist readers of the sermon will, of 
course, approve these sentiments. Few, however, Bap- 
tists or Paedobaptists, will approve the reasons given 
for holding the sentiments. What I particularly call 
attention to is this : How exactly in the dialect of sen- 
timentalism the foregoing quotation is expressed — 
" should feel his heart so moved" " deep yearning" 
" the requirements of his spiritual nature are supreme," 
" possesses an inalienable RIGHT," " inward yearning 
should come to my heart" " should assuredly use my 
personal liberty "/ The question is not at this moment 



THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 235 

whether the acts of intercommunion spoken of are 
right. Granted that they are right, what makes them 
right ? Why, according to this sermon, " feeling," hav- 
ing the " heart " " moved," " deep yearning," " require- 
ments " of the " spiritual nature," " personal liberty." 
This is pure sentimentalism ; it is guidance by the 
feelings. If one feels in a certain way, he has an 
" inalienable RIGHT " to do a certain thing which 
he wants to do, and for no reason that appears but 
the feeling. Now, however valuable intrinsically " feel- 
ings " may be as guides in religious conduct, one thing 
is certain, and that thing is this : Baptists are not the 
people to accept their guidance. It has always been a 
characteristic of Baptists, as matter of theory at least, 
to walk by principle, and not by feelings. They are, I 
believe, the most numerous denomination of Christians 
in America. (I do not except the Methodists in saying 
this, although I should perhaps exclude from con- 
sideration the " probationers," so called, of the Meth- 
odist body.) But I venture to say that there are as few 
religious sentimentalists among American Baptists as 
among the members of any other American denomina- 
tion whatever. It is, therefore, utterly useless to an- 
ticipate a fundamental change in their denominational 
usages as the result of sentimental considerations. We 
Baptists may change our practices in some respects, 
but when we do it will be because our judgment is 
convinced, not because our " feelings " overmaster us. 

I do not mean that there will not be occasional in- 
stances of individual deviation from established Baptist 
customs ; no doubt there will be. There are some — 



236 THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 

perhaps many — among us who, under strong pressure 
of temporary emotion, would assert their independence 
in conduct. These aberrations would seldom, how- 
ever, be made matter of very serious ecclesiastical in- 
quiry, much less of severe vindicatory discipline. They 
would simply be overlooked, or else would furnish oc- 
casion of seasonable pastoral instruction and invigora- 
ting exhortation to fidelity. The important point of 
difference is, that these infractions of usage will never 
be commended by representative Baptist ministers as 
matter of " inalienable RIGHT," nor accepted for such 
by representative Baptist churches. They would rather 
be treated as weaknesses, comparatively trivial weak- 
nesses, however, Baptist common sense generally re- 
fusing to yield to the victims of them the honors of 
martyrdom — martyrdom for " feelings." 

I again insist that I by no means despise " feelings :" 
they are equally honorable with judgment. But either 
li feelings" or judgment must be right to be deserving 
of honor. There are religious sentimentalists whom I 
esteem very highly, almost revere. The author of the 
sermon under comment alludes to one such. It is the 
woman with the alabaster box of costly ointment. She 
was evidently a woman of sentiment all compact, but 
it was right sentiment. For this was its distinguishing 
characteristic. It made nothing of self, and all of 
Christ. It lavished a large sum — perhaps a whole 
fortune for its possessor — in one self-sacrificing act of 
devotion to the Lord. Before such sentimentalism as 
this I wellnigh worship and bow down. But the senti- 
mentalism recommended in this sermon is of a different 



THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 2tf 

quality. It regards Christ too little and self too much. 
This is constantly the besetting danger of " feelings " 
as the guide of conduct. " Shall I break the ritual 
order," the preacher asks, " or impoverish my soul ?" 
And answers " emphatically," with the emphasis of 
italics, "Break the ritual order, and from the broken 
alabaster vase let the perfume of a loving heart ascend 
to God." 

A " ritual order," observe, is here recognized — that 
is, an order divinely intended as between baptism and 
the Lord's Supper. That order is, baptism before the 
Supper. In an earlier part of the discourse this di- 
vinely intended precedence of baptism is strongly in- 
sisted upon ; here, however, he says, " Break the ritual 
order!' Most Psedobaptists recognize the same " ritual 
order." A few Paedobaptists deny it or ignore it. 
None, so far as I know, advise to " break " it. Baptists 
as little certainly as Paedobaptists will be found ready 
to follow the revolutionary advice. 

But note the violent contrast between the sentiment- 
alism thus avowed and inculcated by the preacher, and 
the sentimentalism of the woman alluded to in the 
preacher's metaphor. 

She broke — perhaps " unsealed " — an " alabaster 
box," to be sure. But the box was her own, and she 
had a right to break it. The " ritual order " that the 
sermon says " break " is the Lord's, not ours. It is as 
if the woman had found an alabaster box belonging to 
the human Christ, and in the ecstasy of self-indulging 
love had ventured to break it for anointing him at his 
own expense. That act might have been forgiven, but 



238 THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 

it would hardly have been commended. It would as- 
suredly have borne a widely different character from that 
of the act which was really performed. The woman 
sacrificed what was her own to serve her Lord. We 
are advised to sacrifice what is our Lord's to serve our- 
selves ; for this it means to break a " ritual order " that 
he has appointed, lest, forsooth, we " impoverish " our 
" souls " by keeping it. But the metaphor misleads in 
still another way. The " ritual order " is not a " vase " 
that holds the " perfume of a loving heart." It may, 
indeed, be considered a " vase ;" but then what the vase 
holds is something more precious far than any emotion, 
however holy, of a human heart. It holds a thought 
of God's — a thought which we mutilate when we 
break the vase that holds it. The incense of right love 
to God is imprisoned by no ritual walls. It ascends 
continually, and never so straight and so swift as by 
the way of obedience. It were a shame to suppose 
that the "perfume of a loving heart" could be ob- 
structed in its ascent to God by a recognized obliga- 
tion to keep any one even of his least commandments. 
Sacrificed " feelings " often burn a sweeter incense 
to Christ than " feelings " indulged. Better keep the 
" ritual order " for Christ's sake than break it for 
your own. 

Of such religious sentimentalism, the sentimental- 
ism that denies self to confess the Lord — of such 
genuine religious sentimentalism, I say, May we all 
of us, Baptists and Paedobaptists together, have more 
and more! 



CHAPTER XXVIII. 

THE FUTURE OF " OPEN COMMUNION " AMONG AMER- 
ICAN BAPTISTS. 

SO much has been said, by those with whom the 
wish perhaps is father to the thought, about the 
imminent prospect of a general breaking up of the tra- 
ditional practice of the American Baptist churches with 
respect to restriction of the Lord's Supper, that it may 
be worth while to inquire coolly and candidly what, in 
fact, are the really determining elements of wise predic- 
tion in the case. Mere unfounded conjecture amounts 
to very little ; bold prediction, chiefly designed to help 
bring about its own fulfilment, amounts to still less. 
To collect and weigh a few of the considerations be- 
longing to the question that are truly significant and 
decisive, — this is the sole purpose of the present chap- 
ter. Whether restriction of the Lord's Supper is in- 
herently a good thing or not, is not here to be discussed. 
The matter now to be examined is the following : What 
reasons are there in the actual aspect of things to lead 
us to anticipate a speedy change of the prevailing Bap- 
tist practice in respect to the Lord's Supper ? Are there 
any such reasons ? Let us see : 

In the first place, there are no statistics obtainable to 
show the present relative numerical strength of the par- 

239 



240 THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 

ties within the Baptist denomination in America that 
respectively favor and oppose the restriction of the 
Lord's Supper. Obviously, therefore, we shall have 
to rely for our estimate of future probabilities upon 
other indications. Other indications are not want- 
ing. 

There are the leading Baptist seats of learning; on 
which side will the influence of these be found to be ex- 
erted? Whatever may be the views of those who com- 
pose the present Baptist ministry, the future of the ques- 
tion of restriction, so far as this is to be decided by ac- 
credited public religious teachers, may be supposed to lie 
chiefly with those who are now studying in preparation to 
become Baptist ministers. Under what influences as to 
this question are Baptist ministerial students pursuing 
their studies ? Are we perhaps to look for a change to 
relaxed views on the part of Baptists in the next gen- 
eration, resulting from the comparatively slow, but 
eventually potent, effect of training now being received 
at the various seats of higher learning in the hands of 
the Baptist denomination ? What are the facts ? 

The facts, as I believe, are these : There is no college 
whatsoever belonging to Baptists, North or South — 
Baptists, I mean, of the so-called regular order — that 
is not presided over by a man committed by intimate 
personal conviction, by. persuasion of expediency, or 
at least by equally controlling antecedent public record, 
to maintain restriction of the Lord's Supper as the prac- 
tice of Baptists. More : if there is any Baptist college 
in which a single member of the faculty of instruc- 
tors makes a contrary influence felt, I do not know what 



THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 24 1 

college it is. The positive influence exerted through 
example and through teaching by college instructors 
on their students is all exerted in one direction : it is 
exerted toward keeping the lines now drawn as taut 
and tense as ever. I do not mean to say that direct 
efforts are made in ordinary and regular college educa- 
tion to mould the opinion of undergraduates on this 
subject. But whatever force there is in tradition, and 
whatever force in vigorous public advocacy well known 
to be exerted by college teachers outside of college 
teaching, this force is given solid and strong in favor 
of maintaining things as they are. 

Of the theological seminaries, the same and more 
may be said. I do not presume to speak with absolute 
authority, but this I fully believe to be true — that all 
Baptist theological seminaries in the country teach, 
without faltering and without reserve, the theory and 
the practice of restricting the Lord's Supper to bap- 
tized believers. Of course, students may think as 
they please and act as they please ; they may, if they 
please, differ with their instructors on this point, as 
on others. Such privilege of dissent some of them 
freely exercise. Some of them, I say ; but the num- 
ber, I am fully persuaded, is very small. The public 
opinion in these places, beyond doubt, is overwhelm- 
ingly in favor of conservatism. If what I say is said 
too strongly, it is easy for some one who knows bet- 
ter to contradict me. I run my risk of contradiction. 
I do so without fear. 

What is true of the faculties of instruction at these 
seats of higher education is, if possible, more emphat- 
21 Q 



242 THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 

ically true of the corporators and founders that con- 
trol them. The men who give to endow Baptist insti- 
tutions are generally men of convictions. Such men 
do not give money to have their convictions opposed, 
but to have them maintained and propagated. If they 
tax themselves to endow college or seminary, they 
claim, and they get, their share of representation in 
the administration of seminary or college. Just or 
not, this is what happens. For my part, I think that 
here what happens is just. I know of no instance in 
which the management of a Baptist institution of 
higher learning is not unquestioningly committed to 
a sound conservatism on the point now in question. 
In every way, therefore, it is, I believe, beyond dispute 
that these institutions are pledged and mortgaged 
securely, for many years to come, to the part of re- 
stricted communion. 

I speak of this state of affairs, not now as symptom- 
atic of the set of present public opinion among Bap- 
tists on the question, but rather as a condition creative 
of Baptist public opinion for the future. 

There is another educational force at work upon the 
forming mind of the younger generation of Baptists 
not less effective than that exerted by institutions of 
learning : this force is the denominational periodical 
press. Count over the papers devoted to Baptist views, 
and where is the one, the single one, that would con- 
sent to be called " open communion " in its convictions 
or its tendencies ? I know not of a solitary instance 
among the whole number. This fact is of course in- 
dicative of existing denominational opinion ; but, more 



THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 243 

pregnantly still, it notes an influence, omnipresent and 
penetrating like the atmosphere, that broods day and 
night over the general mind and conscience of Bap- 
tists. There may be a reaction, and the reaction may 
be irresistible when it comes. But is it likely to come 
this year or the next? Is it likely to come in our 
time ? The prognostics certainly do not favor the 
conjecture. 

An additional fact: There is no disputing that 
among the hundreds of thousands of American Bap- 
tists there have been some who at least have been 
lukewarm in their adhesion to strict Baptist views. 
Of this number some have been ministers. Of these 
ministers, most have preserved the silence becoming in 
those who have no vehement convictions compelling 
them to speak ; a few from time to time have spoken 
out. Now, the sequel of the outspeaking of such is 
instructive. With no exception, one of two things 
will be found to have occurred : either the dissident 
has enlarged gradually the arc of his aberration from 
regular views until the centrifugal force that started 
him on his path of eccentricity has flung him quite 
outside of his original orbit, and ended by attaching 
him finally to a foreign ecclesiastical system — con- 
spicuous instances are recent — or else the dissident, 
recoiling from the logical consequences of his liberal 
departure and redressing the violent flexures of his 
movement, has returned obediently to his proper 
place and relations. Seldom, very seldom, has the 
" open-communion " Baptist minister, who, having the 
courage and the conscience of his convictions, has 



244 THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 

openly sought to make them prevail, succeeded in 
maintaining his position as pastor unimpaired. More 
seldom still — has it ever even once occurred ? — has he 
suceeded in bringing his church over to the permanent 
adoption of his views. The sequel of these lax sen- 
timents, when active and aggressive enough to pro- 
nounce themselves, proves almost always powerfully 
deterrent to such as might otherwise be tempted to 
follow. It may safely be said that the grip of the 
Baptist denomination on their established doctrine 
and usage in regard to the Lord's Supper is stronger 
to-day than before, not so much in spite of certain 
intra-denominational movements in favor of so-called 
" open communion " as because of those movements. 
There is more of intelligence and heart now, less of 
mere habit and tradition, in the fidelity with which 
American Baptists cling to their principles. This is 
in some part due to fresh discussions provoked by the 
movements within Baptist ranks in favor of a change 
in their practices. In yet greater part it is due to the 
warning thought to have been discovered in the course 
of those few more prominent Baptist ministers who, 
having begun by efforts to change the views and 
usage of the denomination, have ended their fruitless 
efforts by ceasing to be Baptists. 

In view of numerous perfectly unquestionable indi- 
cations such as those which have now been set forth, 
what chance, to the rational eye, remains of an en- 
couraging future nigh at hand for " open communion " 
among American Baptists ? Barely one : our strength 
may turn out to be our weakness. Young Baptist 



THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 245 

ministers may come to understand that " open com- 
munion " is a road so sure and so short to loss of 
position as pastors that at length subscription to the 
stricter tenet will become a matter, not of conviction, 
but of convention. Thus, in the space of a genera- 
tion or so, lack of discussion may leave the Baptist 
minister unbraced to resist the constant penetrating 
and relaxing influence of extra-denominational en- 
vironment. Then a breaking up of the old lines may 
take place, to be succeeded by a new stretching and 
fixing of them when the disastrous consequences of 
letting them go have had time to exhibit themselves. 
Meantime, the most probable thing is that individual 
instances of laxness will continue to occur about as 
often as necessary to make us seasonably strong and 
vigilant beforehand. 

Their views in regard to the qualifications for ad- 
mission to the Lord's Supper may be a mistake on the 
part of American Baptists ; but, at all events, the mis- 
take is very deeply anchored. To remove it would 
be no light task even for strong hands, and even for 
a good many strong hands working at once and to- 
gether. Granted, however, that it is a mistake, would 
it be worth while for a band of strong men to spend 
their strength in trying to remove it ? Is there not 
better work for such men to do ? I have heard Mr. 
Spurgeon credited with the remark that, " open-com- 
munionist " though he is, still, were he to be a minister 
in America, he should not seek to change the fixed 
practice of American Baptists. The remark struck 
me as eminently worthy of that sturdy common 
21* 



246 THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 

sense in the great English preacher which, not less 
than his fecund and manifold genius, is an attribute 
of his remarkable character. The case with us is 
manifestly one in which the living force of exertion 
would be very wastefully spent in overcoming the vast 
inertia of conservatism. This is especially true, see- 
ing that in the present instance the inertia of conserv- 
atism has an astonishingly obstinate habit of rousing 
itself, upon occasion, into a multiplied energy of re- 
sistance and aggression. 



CHAPTER XXIX. 

THE BAPTIST DENOMINATION HYGIENICALLY CON- 
SIDERED. 

THERE are several different ways in which the 
health and vigor of any organism may approxi- 
mately be tested. Of these different ways, I here men- 
tion three : 

First, you may observe the capacity of the organism 
to expel from itself elements entering it that are essen- 
tially foreign and unassimilable. 

Secondly, you may observe its capacity to assimilate 
and incorporate elements that properly belong to its 
structure. 

Thirdly, you may observe its capacity to endure 
without serious injury to itself the intrusion and pres- 
ence of elements that resist its assimilative and appro- 
priative activity. 

I propose that we apply these three tests succes- 
sively to the Baptist denomination in America, with 
a view to estimating in what degree that denomina- 
tion may be supposed still to possess the vigor of 
survival and growth. 

Let us begin with that test of vitality which con- 
sists in the capacity of an organism to rid itself of 
intruding elements essentially foreign to its constitu- 

247 



248 THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 

tion. I do not now mean the ability to do this in the 
exercise' of a desperate paroxysmal effort by which the 
organism itself may be almost fatally convulsed ; I re- 
fer rather to the quiet, orderly, normal, and habitual 
processes of life, in virtue of which, without strain to 
the body, the element that has entered it, but does not 
properly belong to it, is gently and decisively rejected. 
When there is a kind of convulsive agony of expul- 
sion exerted — as, for example, in the case of a deadly 
poison, between which and the very secret of life there 
is suddenly waged a balanced and doubtful duel — that 
is a sign of vitality, to be sure, but of. vitality in 
danger of being overpowered. On the other hand, if 
the progress of the functions of life is so steady and 
strong as to persist, unconscious of impediment, with- 
out intermission, like the working of mechanism reg- 
ulated by a balance-wheel heavy enough to supply 
momentum constantly more than equal to any resist- 
ance, — if, I say, the vital progress is thus steady and 
strong, flinging off easily and with no shock whatever 
proves not to be homogeneous with the structure of the 
organism, why, then the health and vigor of that or- 
ganism are shown to be pretty much everything that 
could be desired. 

It would be more simple and natural to proceed with 
the application of our test in the present case by men- 
tioning individual illustrative instances. These it would 
be very easy to adduce, but it might seem invidious, 
and I forbear. Each reader will supply illustrations for 
himself. Certain it is that the Baptist denomination in 
America has manifested a remarkable capacity to 



THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 249 

eliminate elements irreducibly foreign which had for a 
time attached themselves to it, and which during that 
time imposed upon a wide public of observers, as well 
as, very likely, also upon themselves, the impression 
that they actually belonged to its body. Again and 
again within a decade of years, not to go farther back, 
it has fallen out that ministers calling themselves Bap- 
tist, and no doubt supposing themselves Baptist, hav- 
ing gone through a period of restlessness within the 
pale of the denomination (the denomination itself so 
calm, meantime, as doubtless still further to disturb 
these uneasy souls with the contrast of its own repose 
and immobility, refusing to feel their agitation, much 
more to partake of it), have, at length, found them- 
selves insensibly projected along the line of their own 
tangential inclinations quite without the orbit of the 
parent body — all in a manner to have transmitted 
scarce reactive sensation enough behind them to ap- 
prise that body that anything had been happening to 
any one. It was the self-conserving force of the de- 
nomination naturally and normally disposing of ele- 
ments that were not of it and that could not contribute 
to its strength. These brethren went forth from us be- 
cause they were not of us. They would have remained, 
but that the body did not need them and freely let 
them go ; they were out of their true place among 
us. This we knew better than they knew it them- 
selves. We waited tolerantly, and they withdrew, 
unconsciously persuaded by our behavior to take this 
action of their own accord. They were completely 
separated and insulated within the body before they 



250 THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 

withdrew. As, while they remained, the body was 
whole and sound without them, so their withdrawal 
was attended by no rent or schism of the body. They 
went quite alone, and they drew no following after them. 
The Baptist body is not appreciably either weaker or 
stronger by the change ; but the change has shown 
the body's strength. The vitality of the denomina- 
tion is proved to be vigorous enough to dismiss these 
ministers without violence of ejection, and certainly 
without violence of recoil. This is precisely as it 
should be with an organism full of health and strength. 
So much for the test of its vigor consisting in the ca- 
pacity exhibited by the Baptist denomination to elimi- 
nate adventitious elements not properly belonging to 
its body. 

But a sound organism ought to exhibit its sound 
condition by something more than its expulsive power 
exerted upon alien elements. It ought also to be ca- 
pable of reducing to agreement with itself and sub- 
duing to its own nurture elements superficially disposed 
to resist, but, nevertheless, fundamentally adapted to 
experience this appropriation of themselves. Apply 
this test of vitality to the Baptist denomination, and 
you will not find the denomination wanting. 

To every reflecting mind at all conversant with recent 
religious history instances will readily occur of Baptist 
ministers temporarily affected with a desire to be irregu- 
larly free in demonstration of fraternal fellowship with 
the unbaptized, beyond what the well-considered usage 
of their denomination in this country would approve, 
who, after a season of moral and intellectual ferment 



THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 25 I 

indicative at once of honesty, of activity, and of imma- 
ture conviction on their part, have cleared themselves 
and settled serenely down into enlightened and tranquil 
accord with the opinion of the majority of their breth- 
ren. These ministers were really of us, and they could 
not extricate themselves from us. The assimilative at- 
traction of the great Baptist body for its own was too 
much for them. They yielded to the stress that was 
stronger. They stretched for a little the elastic bond 
that bound them to us, but the retractile elasticity 
drew them back. The test of soundness and vigor in 
an organism which lies in the capacity of that organism 
to overcome reluctance to be assimilated, displaying 
itself in elements that really belong to its structure, is 
thus completely satisfied in application to the body of 
American Baptists. 

But, besides being equal to the task of expelling 
alien and hostile elements happening to adhere or in- 
trude, and besides being equal to the task of subju- 
gating elements essentially kindred that for a time 
resist assimilation, an organism really healthy and ro- 
bust ought, moreover, to be able, if occasion arise, to 
go on thriving even though elements not friendly that 
have thrust themselves in obstinately remain, refusing 
alike to be gently rejected and to be hospitably sub- 
dued. This test of its vitality the Baptist denomination 
in America will well bear to have applied. The kindly 
strength with which the body refrains from exerting 
itself violently to expel, and yet imperturbably pro- 
ceeds to prosper without expelling, is to him who 
knows how to regard it aright a most edifying spec- 



252 THE BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 

tacle. The dissident brethren find themselves free 
within the denomination, their freedom there, however, 
somewhat conforming to a famous image for the free- 
dom enjoyed by the will amid the alleged environment 
of fatal condition. They are, like a drop of water, 
fruitlessly free in the heart of a rock. That drop can 
move, but only within itself — by mutual interpenetra- 
tion of its particles. So these brethren can agitate, but 
it is only themselves that they affect, and not at all the 
mass of the denomination that encloses them, and that 
encloses them without violating their freedom, while it 
does effectually nullify their power. They remain safely 
encysted, neither harmed nor harming, within the great 
generous body that they will not abandon and that will 
not expel them. 

The Baptist denomination — tried by whichever one 
of the three tests named — is, I submit, in a fairly sound 
and hopeful condition. 



THE END. 



»^/> 



613! 









Wk 



w 






fjiv 



I 



■ 



■ 













,1^ 



■ 



■ 





H 


Bfl 










,• 1 








1 . H 


•***, 



^y;.^ 



mm 



mr*v 



m 



a< 



. pi 



tXfk 



> , 







